The Septuagint Factor

[civic]

I. Times Jesus Used the Greek Version

Like I said, it’s sometimes hard to know whether Jesus used the Greek version, or whether the New Testament writers, in translating His words, mirrored the Greek translations of the OT. But there are a couple times when it’s nearly irrefutable that Jesus Himself used the Greek version. For example:

• Hebrews 10:5-7 and the Incarnation

The most important passage to know on the question of Jesus’ use of the Greek version of Scripture is Hebrews 10:5-7, which says:

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ “

Even the NIV notes that this is a quotation from the Greek version of Psalm 40:6-8. Here’s why that’s important. In the Hebrew versions, Psalm 40:6 says, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.” But all three major Greek versions, the Septuagint, Symmachus and Theodotion translations, list it as “a Body You prepared for Me.” What may have happened, as one author explores here, is that the Hebrew expression is an obscure idiom, and the Greek translations were intentionally non-literal. The theory is that since slaves often wore an earring showing who their master was in the Near East, that offering your ears to God could mean either listening or offering your whole body.


Now, if Psalm 40:6 is a prophesy of Christ, it’s not because God opened His ears, but because Jesus is God-in-the-flesh, with a Body prepared for Him by His Father. So how and why the Greek and MT versions came to be distinct isn’t particularly important, compared to the fact that (a) they are distinct, and (b) Hebrews 10:5 only makes sense with the Greek. Significantly, the author of Hebrews isn’t just saying that the Greek version of the Psalm is a prophesy of Christ. He’s saying that Jesus Himself said it was.

• Jesus quotes the LXX version of Isaiah 29:13 in Mark 7:6-8; the MT version says “their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men,” with no reference to the worship being vain; the LXX version says “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Jesus chooses the LXX, which makes a difference. The context of Mark 7 is not on worship, but on the way they’re living and expecting others to live (ceremonial washing before eating, the Corban, etc.), so the MT version of Isaiah 29:13 doesn’t fit very well, while the LXX version is directly on point, since it deals with both vain worship and teachings.
• In Matthew 21:16, Jesus asks, “have you never read, ‘From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise’?” That’s the Greek version. The Hebrew version says “ordained strength.” And note that Jesus is responding to the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem, who were upset at the children praising Jesus, “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21:15).

There are plenty of other examples, but those are three I know of where it almost certainly wasn’t Matthew or Mark translating into the Greek, but Jesus using the Greek originally, since using the Hebrew would have made substantially less sense.

II. Times the New Testament Authors Used the Greek Version

It’s a lot easier to establish that the New Testament authors frequently used the Greek version of the Bible, and since the Bible is “God-breathed,” it still seems to establish God’s stamp of approval on non-Hebrew versions of the Old Testament over the Hebrew versions, at least at time. So here are a few times where it’s obvious that a Greek version is used, because the author’s point really only makes sense using the Greek:

• Matthew 1:23 and the Virgin Birth

The most important example of a New Testament writer using the Greek version is in Matthew 1:23, in which Matthew declares that Christ being born of the Virgin Mary fulfills Isaiah 7:14’s prophesy that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel.” Matthew purposely quotes from the Greek version here, because only the Greek version is unambiguously a prophesy of the Virgin Birth.


Here’s what I mean. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is `almah. That can be a reference to virginity, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s almost identical to the older English word “maiden,” which can mean virgin, unmarried woman, or young woman, or all of the above. So the Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 is basically, “the maiden will be with child and give birth to a son,” which might or might not be about the Virgin Mary giving birth.


But what’s significant is that when it was translated into Greek (which was before the time of Christ, mind you), the translators understood it to be about a coming Virgin Birth. And so they chose a Greek word which clearly meant “virgin.” This decision on their part is important, because it was unbiased — the translator wasn’t trying to prove or deny the Virgin Birth, as translators after the coming of Christ have been.


Still, St. Matthew reaches for the Greek version of the prophesy when he’s announcing its fulfillment. And the choice is deliberate. In Matthew 2:15, he chooses the Hebrew version, where that one is more clear.


So that’s the most important example of the Greek being chosen over the Hebrew. There’s another important one, at the Council of Jerusalem.

• Acts 15:17 and Salvation for the Gentiles

James, at the Council of Jerusalem, argues that salvation by Jesus Christ is extended to even the Gentiles. He bases this conclusion in part upon Peter’s testimony, and in part on the Old Testament. In particular, he says in Acts 15:15-18,

The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

” ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages.”

That’s Amos 9:11-12 he’s quoting, and it’s the Greek version. We know it’s the Greek version because the Hebrew version says that God will restore and rebuild David’s fallen tent, “so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” suggesting that the restored Israel would conquer, rather than save, the Gentiles. If the Masoretic Text were right here, this would seem to be an argument against James’ point, which is that the Church, as the restored and rebuilt Israel, is for all the faithful, including the Gentiles.


Beyond those two examples, here are a few others, where it just seems obvious enough that the Greek is being preferred:

• Peter, in 1 Peter 4:18, says “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” That’s an exact quotation of the LXX version of Proverbs 4:11. But the MT version of Proverbs 4:11 says something totally different (and strange): “If the righteous will be rewarded in the earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner! ”
• Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:55, quotes Hosea 13:14 to say, “Where, O death, is your sting?” while the MT version of that verse says, “Where, O death, are your plagues?” The meaning is similar, but he chose the Greek version.
• Finally, the MT version of Deuteronomy 32:43 is: “Rejoice, O nations, with his people, / for he will avenge the blood of his servants; / he will take vengeance on his enemies /
  and make atonement for his land and people.” The Septuagint, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, include the line “and let all the angels worship him“ between the first and second line. Hebrews 1:6 says, “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” So here, the author of Hebrews is quoting to a line of the song that’s not found in the standard Hebrew (MT) version. So there’s literally no way he’s quoting (or even paraphrasing) the verse from the MT, since it doesn’t exist there.

There are dozens of verses in addition to this one, but most of those are really inconsequential differences you wouldn’t ever notice without comparing the text side by side.

III. Why This Matters

My point is not that Jesus and/or the authors of the NT thought that the Greek version of the Old Testament was better than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.


Rather, as I mentioned with St. Matthew, you can find plenty of examples of Jesus, and the NT writers, using both versions of the Old Testament. Quite frankly, neither the LXX nor the Masoretic Text is perfect, just as there’s no single English-language version of the Bible which is absolutely perfect. That’s clearly the view of Jesus and His Apostles, since they don’t feel tied to a single translation or version. And it’s clearly the view of the Church: She’s willing to use translations, even by heretics — to the disgust of Jerome, as I noted this morning — if it’s a more accurate version. Sometimes, that meaning is best captured by having multiple translations. For example, Jerome himself translates the same phrase in the Lord’s Prayer as both “daily Bread” and “supersubstantial Bread.” Taken together, these phrases capture a full range of meaning: that the Eucharist is “supersubstantial,” that It is the fulfillment of the Old Testament manna, that we should pray to receive Christ in the Eucharist daily, etc. So the fact that no one version of the Bible, in English, Greek, or Hebrew, isn’t particularly cause for alarm — it can even be a blessing in disguise.


But it’s significant that it’s just assumed that the Greek version of the Bible is Scripture. Jesus expected even the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem to know the Greek version as Scripture, which Matthew 21:15-16 makes clear. That’s very important because the Greek version contains the Deuterocanon. Even though modern Jews reject the Greek version of Scripture, and reject the Deuterocanon, at least some Jews at the time of Christ (plus, of course, Christ Himself) knew it and considered it Scripture. It’s Christ, not the Israelites, who is in the best position to declare what is and is not Scripture. And He’s spoken here. What further reason could there be to reject the Deuterocanon?https://shamelesspopery.com/did-jesus-use-the-greek-version-of-the-bible/

*So, for example, the Shema Israel in Deuteronomy 6:5 says to love God with all your heart, soul, and strength; but in the Greek translation, it’s heart, mind, soul, and strength. The reason is that the Hebrew term for “heart” had more meaning, so it took two Greek words to translate the one Hebrew word. In Mark 12:30, we hear Jesus quoting the Greek version, but in Matthew’s account of the same conversation (Matthew 22:37), He’s quoting the Hebrew version. What happened? Jesus said it in Hebrew, and the oldest known versions of both Matthew and Mark’s Gospels are in Greek. So Mark, or someone translating Mark’s Gospel into Greek, did the same thing the LXX translators did when they translated Deut. 6:5, while Matthew kept the more literal version. Here, if you didn’t have two versions, it might look like Jesus was using the Greek, but Matthew’s version is pretty strong evidence that He used the Hebrew version. (Although it’s possible that Jesus said it in Greek, and Matthew translated it back into Hebrew, that’s the less likely of the two options).

hope this helps !!!

 

[Johann]

Like I said, it’s sometimes hard to know whether Jesus used the Greek version, or whether the New Testament writers, in translating His words, mirrored the Greek translations of the OT. But there are a couple times when it’s nearly irrefutable that Jesus Himself used the Greek version. For example:

• Hebrews 10:5-7 and the Incarnation

The most important passage to know on the question of Jesus’ use of the Greek version of Scripture is Hebrews 10:5-7, which says:




Even the NIV notes that this is a quotation from the Greek version of Psalm 40:6-8. Here’s why that’s important. In the Hebrew versions, Psalm 40:6 says, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.” But all three major Greek versions, the Septuagint, Symmachus and Theodotion translations, list it as “a Body You prepared for Me.” What may have happened, as one author explores here, is that the Hebrew expression is an obscure idiom, and the Greek translations were intentionally non-literal. The theory is that since slaves often wore an earring showing who their master was in the Near East, that offering your ears to God could mean either listening or offering your whole body.


Now, if Psalm 40:6 is a prophesy of Christ, it’s not because God opened His ears, but because Jesus is God-in-the-flesh, with a Body prepared for Him by His Father. So how and why the Greek and MT versions came to be distinct isn’t particularly important, compared to the fact that (a) they are distinct, and (b) Hebrews 10:5 only makes sense with the Greek. Significantly, the author of Hebrews isn’t just saying that the Greek version of the Psalm is a prophesy of Christ. He’s saying that Jesus Himself said it was.

• Jesus quotes the LXX version of Isaiah 29:13 in Mark 7:6-8; the MT version says “their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men,” with no reference to the worship being vain; the LXX version says “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Jesus chooses the LXX, which makes a difference. The context of Mark 7 is not on worship, but on the way they’re living and expecting others to live (ceremonial washing before eating, the Corban, etc.), so the MT version of Isaiah 29:13 doesn’t fit very well, while the LXX version is directly on point, since it deals with both vain worship and teachings.
• In Matthew 21:16, Jesus asks, “have you never read, ‘From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise’?” That’s the Greek version. The Hebrew version says “ordained strength.” And note that Jesus is responding to the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem, who were upset at the children praising Jesus, “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21:15).

There are plenty of other examples, but those are three I know of where it almost certainly wasn’t Matthew or Mark translating into the Greek, but Jesus using the Greek originally, since using the Hebrew would have made substantially less sense.




It’s a lot easier to establish that the New Testament authors frequently used the Greek version of the Bible, and since the Bible is “God-breathed,” it still seems to establish God’s stamp of approval on non-Hebrew versions of the Old Testament over the Hebrew versions, at least at time. So here are a few times where it’s obvious that a Greek version is used, because the author’s point really only makes sense using the Greek:

• Matthew 1:23 and the Virgin Birth

The most important example of a New Testament writer using the Greek version is in Matthew 1:23, in which Matthew declares that Christ being born of the Virgin Mary fulfills Isaiah 7:14’s prophesy that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel.” Matthew purposely quotes from the Greek version here, because only the Greek version is unambiguously a prophesy of the Virgin Birth.


Here’s what I mean. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is `almah. That can be a reference to virginity, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s almost identical to the older English word “maiden,” which can mean virgin, unmarried woman, or young woman, or all of the above. So the Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 is basically, “the maiden will be with child and give birth to a son,” which might or might not be about the Virgin Mary giving birth.


But what’s significant is that when it was translated into Greek (which was before the time of Christ, mind you), the translators understood it to be about a coming Virgin Birth. And so they chose a Greek word which clearly meant “virgin.” This decision on their part is important, because it was unbiased — the translator wasn’t trying to prove or deny the Virgin Birth, as translators after the coming of Christ have been.


Still, St. Matthew reaches for the Greek version of the prophesy when he’s announcing its fulfillment. And the choice is deliberate. In Matthew 2:15, he chooses the Hebrew version, where that one is more clear.


So that’s the most important example of the Greek being chosen over the Hebrew. There’s another important one, at the Council of Jerusalem.

• Acts 15:17 and Salvation for the Gentiles

James, at the Council of Jerusalem, argues that salvation by Jesus Christ is extended to even the Gentiles. He bases this conclusion in part upon Peter’s testimony, and in part on the Old Testament. In particular, he says in Acts 15:15-18,









That’s Amos 9:11-12 he’s quoting, and it’s the Greek version. We know it’s the Greek version because the Hebrew version says that God will restore and rebuild David’s fallen tent, “so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” suggesting that the restored Israel would conquer, rather than save, the Gentiles. If the Masoretic Text were right here, this would seem to be an argument against James’ point, which is that the Church, as the restored and rebuilt Israel, is for all the faithful, including the Gentiles.


Beyond those two examples, here are a few others, where it just seems obvious enough that the Greek is being preferred:

• Peter, in 1 Peter 4:18, says “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” That’s an exact quotation of the LXX version of Proverbs 4:11. But the MT version of Proverbs 4:11 says something totally different (and strange): “If the righteous will be rewarded in the earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner! ”
• Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:55, quotes Hosea 13:14 to say, “Where, O death, is your sting?” while the MT version of that verse says, “Where, O death, are your plagues?” The meaning is similar, but he chose the Greek version.
• Finally, the MT version of Deuteronomy 32:43 is: “Rejoice, O nations, with his people, / for he will avenge the blood of his servants; / he will take vengeance on his enemies /
  and make atonement for his land and people.” The Septuagint, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, include the line “and let all the angels worship him“ between the first and second line. Hebrews 1:6 says, “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” So here, the author of Hebrews is quoting to a line of the song that’s not found in the standard Hebrew (MT) version. So there’s literally no way he’s quoting (or even paraphrasing) the verse from the MT, since it doesn’t exist there.

There are dozens of verses in addition to this one, but most of those are really inconsequential differences you wouldn’t ever notice without comparing the text side by side.




My point is not that Jesus and/or the authors of the NT thought that the Greek version of the Old Testament was better than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.


Rather, as I mentioned with St. Matthew, you can find plenty of examples of Jesus, and the NT writers, using both versions of the Old Testament. Quite frankly, neither the LXX nor the Masoretic Text is perfect, just as there’s no single English-language version of the Bible which is absolutely perfect. That’s clearly the view of Jesus and His Apostles, since they don’t feel tied to a single translation or version. And it’s clearly the view of the Church: She’s willing to use translations, even by heretics — to the disgust of Jerome, as I noted this morning — if it’s a more accurate version. Sometimes, that meaning is best captured by having multiple translations. For example, Jerome himself translates the same phrase in the Lord’s Prayer as both “daily Bread” and “supersubstantial Bread.” Taken together, these phrases capture a full range of meaning: that the Eucharist is “supersubstantial,” that It is the fulfillment of the Old Testament manna, that we should pray to receive Christ in the Eucharist daily, etc. So the fact that no one version of the Bible, in English, Greek, or Hebrew, isn’t particularly cause for alarm — it can even be a blessing in disguise.


But it’s significant that it’s just assumed that the Greek version of the Bible is Scripture. Jesus expected even the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem to know the Greek version as Scripture, which Matthew 21:15-16 makes clear. That’s very important because the Greek version contains the Deuterocanon. Even though modern Jews reject the Greek version of Scripture, and reject the Deuterocanon, at least some Jews at the time of Christ (plus, of course, Christ Himself) knew it and considered it Scripture. It’s Christ, not the Israelites, who is in the best position to declare what is and is not Scripture. And He’s spoken here. What further reason could there be to reject the Deuterocanon?https://shamelesspopery.com/did-jesus-use-the-greek-version-of-the-bible/

*So, for example, the Shema Israel in Deuteronomy 6:5 says to love God with all your heart, soul, and strength; but in the Greek translation, it’s heart, mind, soul, and strength. The reason is that the Hebrew term for “heart” had more meaning, so it took two Greek words to translate the one Hebrew word. In Mark 12:30, we hear Jesus quoting the Greek version, but in Matthew’s account of the same conversation (Matthew 22:37), He’s quoting the Hebrew version. What happened? Jesus said it in Hebrew, and the oldest known versions of both Matthew and Mark’s Gospels are in Greek. So Mark, or someone translating Mark’s Gospel into Greek, did the same thing the LXX translators did when they translated Deut. 6:5, while Matthew kept the more literal version. Here, if you didn’t have two versions, it might look like Jesus was using the Greek, but Matthew’s version is pretty strong evidence that He used the Hebrew version. (Although it’s possible that Jesus said it in Greek, and Matthew translated it back into Hebrew, that’s the less likely of the two options).

hope this helps !!!

Contact Support

https://catholic-answers-text-to-speech.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/amazon_polly_2416.mp3

 

[civic]

Contact Support

If the word for word lines up with the Greek and not the Hebrew then He is quoting from the LXX. Remember Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass away. Jesus didn't make mistakes or misquote from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

 

[Johann]

If the word for word lines up with the Greek and not the Hebrew then He is quoting from the LXX. Remember Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass away. Jesus didn't make mistakes or misquote from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

Did Jesus quote from the LXX
It is the claim by many people that Jesus and the apostles either read from or quoted from “the” Septuagint.

They claim that when Jesus quoted the OT he most often quoted from “the” Septuagint and not the Hebrew masoretic text. This therefore validates the text of “the” Septuagint over and above that of the masoretic text.

This claim is so often stated as a matter of fact. I do wonder how many who make this claim have actually studied the scriptures and the quotations themselves and are not simply regurgitating what they have been told. However there are those that have studied and yet still make this claim.

There are some problems with this claim.

Firstly there are no manuscripts from before the New Testament had been written that validate the claim. The earliest come from the 3rd century. 3rd century manuscripts are at least 200 years after the New Testament had already been composed. It is just as easily argued that the words of the New Testament quotes were retrospectively added back into the Old Testament passages after the New Testament had been written by those who saw the quotes did not align, thought that this was a mistake and then tried to better align the texts.

Secondly if Jesus most often quoted “the” Septuagint over the Hebrew but sometimes quoted the Hebrew over “the” Septuagint this would mean that Jesus was at best inconsistent with his quotations. It would also, while showing that Jesus thought “the” Septuagint was, percentage wise anyway, more accurate than the Hebrew, also show that there were at least places where Jesus thought the Hebrew was superior over “the” Septuagint. This means that the Jews must not have ONLY been using “the” Septuagint. Otherwise Jesus would have only quoted “the” Septuagint, there would have been no point in quoting the Hebrew which if they only used “the” Septuagint he would not have have had access to anyway. Jesus quoting the Hebrew at all, means the Jews must have also been using the Hebrew texts, and thus showing they did speak Hebrew at the time. Something many who claim Jesus quoted “the” Septuagint actually argue against.

Without going into the argument regarding the actuality of a Septuagint that was in existence at the time of Jesus.which I do argue against in another writing, this would mean that the Septuagint must have existed at the time of Jesus, the Jews in Jerusalem had a copy of it, they used it read from it and they presented Jesus with a copy for him to read from and they would also have had and utilised the Hebrew texts.

But let’s analyse some of these quotations of Jesus and the New Testament writers that supposedly came from “the” Septuagint.

We shall start with one of the most famous quotes of Jesus, where he actually reads from Isaiah and proclaims that he was the fulfilling of what he quoted.

Luke 4- 21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus was presented with the book of Isaiah. He opened the book, found where it was written and proceeded to quote.

Luke 4- 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The words of Jesus are then recorded.

Luke 4-18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. KJV

The place we find this quote is Isaiah 61-1 and 2

Isaiah 61- 1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;KJV

It does not take a Biblical scholar to see that the quote in Luke does not perfectly align with what is written in Isaiah. Most people who claim Jesus quoted “the” Septuagint will point to the clause In Luke “and recovering of sight to the blind,” which is not found in the passage in Isaiah which is translated from the Masoretic text. The clause is not found in the Masoretic text.

They will then point to the fact that the it is included in the passage of Isaiah that is found in “the” Septuagint.

Isaiah 61- “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord”
Lancelot C. L. Brenton English translation of the LXX

So there you go. Clearly Jesus must have been quoting “the” Septuagint and not from the Hebrew. The clause is used by Jesus,it is not in the Hebrew but it is in “the” Septuagint.

Seems pretty straightforward. But all is not as straightforward as it might seem.
What is almost never mentioned is that there is in fact a clause that is included in the Hebrew of Isaiah that also appears in Luke that is NOT included in “the” Septuagint.

This being “to set at liberty them that are bruised,” Luke 4-18

“and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” Isaiah 61-1

While the words are not exactly the same the meaning implied is.

Liberty is the Greek ἄφεσις Aphesis meaning to release. Bruised is θραύω thrauó and can mean oppressed which has the same meaning as those that are bound.

This clause as stated is totally missing from the Septuagint.

So while it is true that “the” Septuagint does have one clause that the MT does not have. The Masoretic text also has a clause that “the” Septuagint does not. If the argument can be made that Jesus must have quoted “the” Septuagint because Jesus used a clause that is found only in “the” Septuagint then we can use that EXACT same argument to actually say that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Masoretic text and not “the” Septuagint..

If Jesus using a clause not found in the Hebrew text supports the use of “the“ Septuagint then the clause found in the Masoretic text and not “the” Septuagint must be used as support for his quoting the Masoretic text, if we are going to remain honest and consistent anyway. If Jesus did quote directly from the Septuagint then he did no better a job of it than if he quoted directly from the Hebrew as the quote found in Luke is NEITHER a perfect match of the Hebrew or “the” Septuagint.

The FACT is Jesus did not quote ANY text word for word which as we have seen is demonstrably so, and neither is there any reason that he should have.

Luke states that Jesus turned to where it was written. Not that Jesus quoted the passage word for word. Jesus and in fact many NT writers expounded and explained the word as it was written. They did not quote what was written in the exact way that it was written.

God himself quoted people not using the exact words that they had used.

In Genesis God told Abraham that Sarah was going to have a son.
Sarah laughed at this

Genesis 18- 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

However when God “quoted” Sarah to Abraham in the VERY NEXT VERSE he does not in fact quote her word for word. Rather God simply “quotes” the meaning of what Sarah had said.

Genesis 18- 13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

Another perfect example of a paraphrased quotation is found in 1 Samuel chapter 15

1 Samuel 15- 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

However when this is quoted in the same chapter the quote is not word for word.

1 Samuel 15- 18And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

The simple fact is that biblical quotations do not have to align perfectly in order to be quotes. It is evident that quotations simply need to reflect the general meaning of that which is being “quoted”.

The Biblical writers often amalgamated passages together. One example of this is found at the start of the mission of John the Baptist.

Mark 1-2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Prophets plural here because this quote of what was written is actually not found in one particular prophet.

“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” is found in Malachi 3-1

Malachi 3-1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

While “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Is found in Isaiah 40-3

Isaiah 40-3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Many new versions incorrectly state this is written in Isaiah the PROPHET singular in Mark 1-2

Mark 1-2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” — NIV

Mark 1-2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, ESV

Mark 1-2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; NASB

But I am not here to win a point.

 

[civic]

Did Jesus quote from the LXX
It is the claim by many people that Jesus and the apostles either read from or quoted from “the” Septuagint.

They claim that when Jesus quoted the OT he most often quoted from “the” Septuagint and not the Hebrew masoretic text. This therefore validates the text of “the” Septuagint over and above that of the masoretic text.

This claim is so often stated as a matter of fact. I do wonder how many who make this claim have actually studied the scriptures and the quotations themselves and are not simply regurgitating what they have been told. However there are those that have studied and yet still make this claim.

There are some problems with this claim.

Firstly there are no manuscripts from before the New Testament had been written that validate the claim. The earliest come from the 3rd century. 3rd century manuscripts are at least 200 years after the New Testament had already been composed. It is just as easily argued that the words of the New Testament quotes were retrospectively added back into the Old Testament passages after the New Testament had been written by those who saw the quotes did not align, thought that this was a mistake and then tried to better align the texts.

Secondly if Jesus most often quoted “the” Septuagint over the Hebrew but sometimes quoted the Hebrew over “the” Septuagint this would mean that Jesus was at best inconsistent with his quotations. It would also, while showing that Jesus thought “the” Septuagint was, percentage wise anyway, more accurate than the Hebrew, also show that there were at least places where Jesus thought the Hebrew was superior over “the” Septuagint. This means that the Jews must not have ONLY been using “the” Septuagint. Otherwise Jesus would have only quoted “the” Septuagint, there would have been no point in quoting the Hebrew which if they only used “the” Septuagint he would not have have had access to anyway. Jesus quoting the Hebrew at all, means the Jews must have also been using the Hebrew texts, and thus showing they did speak Hebrew at the time. Something many who claim Jesus quoted “the” Septuagint actually argue against.

Without going into the argument regarding the actuality of a Septuagint that was in existence at the time of Jesus.which I do argue against in another writing, this would mean that the Septuagint must have existed at the time of Jesus, the Jews in Jerusalem had a copy of it, they used it read from it and they presented Jesus with a copy for him to read from and they would also have had and utilised the Hebrew texts.

But let’s analyse some of these quotations of Jesus and the New Testament writers that supposedly came from “the” Septuagint.

We shall start with one of the most famous quotes of Jesus, where he actually reads from Isaiah and proclaims that he was the fulfilling of what he quoted.

Luke 4- 21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus was presented with the book of Isaiah. He opened the book, found where it was written and proceeded to quote.

Luke 4- 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The words of Jesus are then recorded.

Luke 4-18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. KJV

The place we find this quote is Isaiah 61-1 and 2

Isaiah 61- 1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;KJV

It does not take a Biblical scholar to see that the quote in Luke does not perfectly align with what is written in Isaiah. Most people who claim Jesus quoted “the” Septuagint will point to the clause In Luke “and recovering of sight to the blind,” which is not found in the passage in Isaiah which is translated from the Masoretic text. The clause is not found in the Masoretic text.

They will then point to the fact that the it is included in the passage of Isaiah that is found in “the” Septuagint.

Isaiah 61- “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord”
Lancelot C. L. Brenton English translation of the LXX

So there you go. Clearly Jesus must have been quoting “the” Septuagint and not from the Hebrew. The clause is used by Jesus,it is not in the Hebrew but it is in “the” Septuagint.

Seems pretty straightforward. But all is not as straightforward as it might seem.
What is almost never mentioned is that there is in fact a clause that is included in the Hebrew of Isaiah that also appears in Luke that is NOT included in “the” Septuagint.

This being “to set at liberty them that are bruised,” Luke 4-18

“and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” Isaiah 61-1

While the words are not exactly the same the meaning implied is.

Liberty is the Greek ἄφεσις Aphesis meaning to release. Bruised is θραύω thrauó and can mean oppressed which has the same meaning as those that are bound.

This clause as stated is totally missing from the Septuagint.

So while it is true that “the” Septuagint does have one clause that the MT does not have. The Masoretic text also has a clause that “the” Septuagint does not. If the argument can be made that Jesus must have quoted “the” Septuagint because Jesus used a clause that is found only in “the” Septuagint then we can use that EXACT same argument to actually say that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Masoretic text and not “the” Septuagint..

If Jesus using a clause not found in the Hebrew text supports the use of “the“ Septuagint then the clause found in the Masoretic text and not “the” Septuagint must be used as support for his quoting the Masoretic text, if we are going to remain honest and consistent anyway. If Jesus did quote directly from the Septuagint then he did no better a job of it than if he quoted directly from the Hebrew as the quote found in Luke is NEITHER a perfect match of the Hebrew or “the” Septuagint.

The FACT is Jesus did not quote ANY text word for word which as we have seen is demonstrably so, and neither is there any reason that he should have.

Luke states that Jesus turned to where it was written. Not that Jesus quoted the passage word for word. Jesus and in fact many NT writers expounded and explained the word as it was written. They did not quote what was written in the exact way that it was written.

God himself quoted people not using the exact words that they had used.

In Genesis God told Abraham that Sarah was going to have a son.
Sarah laughed at this

Genesis 18- 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

However when God “quoted” Sarah to Abraham in the VERY NEXT VERSE he does not in fact quote her word for word. Rather God simply “quotes” the meaning of what Sarah had said.

Genesis 18- 13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

Another perfect example of a paraphrased quotation is found in 1 Samuel chapter 15

1 Samuel 15- 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

However when this is quoted in the same chapter the quote is not word for word.

1 Samuel 15- 18And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

The simple fact is that biblical quotations do not have to align perfectly in order to be quotes. It is evident that quotations simply need to reflect the general meaning of that which is being “quoted”.

The Biblical writers often amalgamated passages together. One example of this is found at the start of the mission of John the Baptist.

Mark 1-2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Prophets plural here because this quote of what was written is actually not found in one particular prophet.

“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” is found in Malachi 3-1

Malachi 3-1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

While “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Is found in Isaiah 40-3

Isaiah 40-3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Many new versions incorrectly state this is written in Isaiah the PROPHET singular in Mark 1-2

Mark 1-2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” — NIV

Mark 1-2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, ESV

Mark 1-2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; NASB

But I am not here to win a point.

Like everything else that’s debated on forum there are two opposing sides of the argument whether we are discussing the Trinity vs Unitarianism/Oneness , Deity of Christ vs human only, Pre mil vs amil, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Law vs Grace , OT vs NT and the list goes on and on.

If we all agreed these forums wouldn’t even exist.

 

[Johann]

Like everything else that’s debated on forum there are two opposing sides of the argument whether we are discussing the Trinity vs Unitarianism/Oneness , Deity of Christ vs human only, Pre mil vs amil, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Law vs Grace , OT vs NT and the list goes on and on.

If we all agreed these forums wouldn’t even exist.

Absolutely correct brother.