# NT use of LXX and Hebrew



## RamistThomist (Dec 27, 2019)

I know the NT writers primarily used the LXX, but where did they also use the Hebrew manuscripts?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 27, 2019)

My understanding is that Paul seems to exclusively use the LXX, at least a version of it, while the gospels especially seem to be using some sort of proto-Masoretic text much of the time. Of course, if this is true, they would have had to translate into Greek themselves. It seems equally likely to me that the gospel writers could have used a version of the LXX and simply paraphrased it or even corrected it af times.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 27, 2019)

Do you mean a quotation that is closer to the MT than to the LXX _where the MT and LXX disagree_? Obviously, there are loads of places where the NT quotes the LXX which is, in turn, a very close or even literal translation of the Hebrew.

Hebrews 7:1-4 is a quotation of Genesis 14:17-20, but there is no easy way to tell whether it is closer to the LXX or to the MT. Same with Hebrews 9:20/Exodus 24:8. One other phenomenon is true in Hebrews: the author often changes the LXX even when he does quote the LXX. Hebrews 10:30 follows the MT over the LXX in quoting Deuteronomy 32:35-36. I have a paper on all the quotations of Hebrews, if you would like to read it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 27, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> I have a paper on all the quotations of Hebrews, if you would like to read it.



Lane, I'd like to see that. I have my own notes but they aren't exhaustive.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 27, 2019)

No problem, here it is.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 27, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> No problem, here it is.



One point of clarification. On page 2 under Hebrews 1:5, you say the LXX at that point is a fairly literal translation of the MT. Did the MT exist at that time, or was that a proto-MT?


----------



## Eoghan (Dec 28, 2019)

I hesitate to intrude on this conversation but was there a copy of all OT books in Greek acknowledged as the LXX or were there some OT books translated into Greek?

I am inclined to notice discrepancies with the LXX and note that the Hebrew is the original. Where there are discrepancies it suggests that the NT writers translated the Hebrew into Greek - sometimes in agreement with the LXX sometimes differing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> I hesitate to intrude on this conversation but was there a copy of all OT books in Greek acknowledged as the LXX or were there some OT books translated into Greek?
> 
> I am inclined to notice discrepancies with the LXX and note that the Hebrew is the original. Where there are discrepancies it suggests that the NT writers translated the Hebrew into Greek - sometimes in agreement with the LXX sometimes differing.



THe full copy of LXX came in stages. The Hebrew was the original but not the Masoretic Text, as the Masoretes didn't exist until centuries later.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eoghan (Dec 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Hebrew was the original



I struggle when told that all translations have merit. I tend to think that the most literal translation of the original text should be what we strive for. I feel the same when weighing up the Hebrew "original" with the Greek translations. The Hebrew is the original inspired text, it may not be as transparent as we might wish but it is way closer to the_ textus recepticus_(?) than any uninspired Jewish translation, no?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2019)

Eoghan said:


> I struggle when told that all translations have merit. I tend to think that the most literal translation of the original text should be what we strive for. I feel the same when weighing up the Hebrew "original" with the Greek translations. The Hebrew is the original inspired text, it may not be as transparent as we might wish but it is way closer to the_ textus recepticus_(?) than any uninspired Jewish translation, no?



The Hebrew is inspired, but the Masoretic text didn't exist until much later.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> One point of clarification. On page 2 under Hebrews 1:5, you say the LXX at that point is a fairly literal translation of the MT. Did the MT exist at that time, or was that a proto-MT?



Jacob, I use the term "MT" to mean the Hebrew text that we have available. Whether you want to call it "proto" or not is merely a matter of preference. The Great Isaiah Scroll from the DSS has proven to us just how little the Hebrew text changed over a thousand years before the Masoretes. In some cases, of course, like Jeremiah, there were two editions of the book even in Hebrew (as the DSS plainly indicates). The LXX followed the shorter Hebrew text that Jeremiah wrote in Egypt, and the MT follows the later fuller version he wrote in Babylon. But in the majority of NT quotations, the LXX and the MT are going to line up rather closely. The LXX is not monolithic in its translation technique, however. Some books are far more literal than others, some even to the point of woodenness (though none of them were as wooden as Aquila's translation!).

Reactions: Like 1


----------

