# Places where NT authors didn't rely on LXX?



## RamistThomist (Jan 11, 2013)

I remember reading in Bavinck somewhere where he argued that in a few places the NT authors did not follow the LXX. Can anyone point me to some examples?


----------



## hammondjones (Jan 11, 2013)

Matt 2.15/ Hosea 11.1 
*New Testament/Masoretic Text*
"Out of Egypt have I called my son." 
*Septuagint*
out of Egypt have I called his children.

Matt 11.10/ Malachi 3.1
*New Testament/Masoretic Text*
"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee." 
*Septuagint*
Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me.

John 19.37/ Zech. 12.10 
*New Testament/Masoretic Text*
"They shall look upon him whom they have pierced." 
*Septuagint*
They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me.


Rom 9.33/ Isaiah 8.14
*New Testament/Masoretic Text*
"a stumbling stone and a rock of offense" 
*Septuagint*
a stumbling stone, neither against the falling of a rock

Rom 11.35/ Job 41.11 
*New Testament/Masoretic Text* 
"Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid."
*Septuagint*
or who will resist me, and abide

1 Cor 3.19/ Job 5.13 
*New Testament/Masoretic Text*
"He catches the wise in their craftiness" 
*Septuagint*
who takes the wise in their wisdom

The Septuagint in the New Testament


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 11, 2013)

I would say between Matthew and Revelation, inclusive. If you mean where the NT authors did not rely on the LXX reading when it _contradicted_ the Hebrew MT. We've had some discussion on this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/ and http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-nt-authors-quote-lxx-55489/. It's an interesting topic. I'd be interested in what you have to say, Jacob, being among EO folks a good while.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 11, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would say between Matthew and Revelation, inclusive. If you mean where the NT authors did not rely on the LXX reading when it _contradicted_ the Hebrew MT. We've had some discussion on this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/ and http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-nt-authors-quote-lxx-55489/. It's an interesting topic. I'd be interested in what you have to say, Jacob, being among EO folks a good while.




They usually say stuff like, "We use the LXX, which is what Jesus used. The MT was edited by Christ-haters, so Protestants have a Christ-hating bible."

Stuff like that.

Ironically, though, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 12, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > I would say between Matthew and Revelation, inclusive. If you mean where the NT authors did not rely on the LXX reading when it _contradicted_ the Hebrew MT. We've had some discussion on this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/ and http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-nt-authors-quote-lxx-55489/. It's an interesting topic. I'd be interested in what you have to say, Jacob, being among EO folks a good while.
> ...



Actually, brother, from orthodoxstudybible.com:



> The new Orthodox Study Bible contains the entire Old Testament of the Orthodox Church, including the "Deuterocanonical" books. Although based on the New King James Version, it offers a fresh translation from the Greek text of the Septuagint.



The New Testament text, however, is the NKJV NT.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2013)

TylerRay said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem Blade said:
> ...



They are referring to a newer version. My copy is emphatically not based on the LXX. That is one of the reasons why many "hard-core" Ortho guys slammed the OSB (that, and it was published by an evangelical-ish publisher).


----------



## Sebastian Kim (Jan 15, 2013)

Well, even the way Matthew links Immanuel with Christ, doesn't sound like the LXX is as directly used with Matthew as suggested(according to some scholars, the LXX implies that the child would be Ahaz's son).
Motyer has a very interesting approach to the text.
Amazon.com: The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (9780830815937): J. Alec Motyer: Books


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2013)

There is an interesting book on the publishing of the Hebrew OT (and Greek New) into modern Greek within the Greek Orthodox Church, though it was strongly resisted by conservative forces within that church, and never became "official" (actually it was suppressed). The book on this is, _Translating The Scriptures Into Modern Greek_, by N.M. Vaporis (MA Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1994) ISBN 1885652003. Vaporis writes a very fair and evenhanded account (I think he was quite sympathetic to the endeavor).

In the 1800s Adamantios Koraes initially posited the idea that the original Hebrew OT was superior to the Greek Church's traditional Septuagint translation. To make a very interesting and long story short, Neophytos Vamvas eventually produced it, in 1850. Protestants (Presbyterians) were instrumental in this. This Bible used to be published by the American Bible Society (don't know if it's still in print); it's available here (eSword also has it in a module):

Gospel.gr::Online Bible Study

Modern Greek Bible

This old Vamvas Bible is still hard for modern Greeks to read. There is a modernized version called The New Vamvas, and it can be obtained here: Pergamos Publications -. My wife used to read from this version to her grandmother, and Yia-yia (grandma in Greek) could comprehend it easily. This is the Bible Evangelicals among the Greeks (in Cyprus and Greece) use. Both the old and the newer version use the Textus Receptus for the NT.


----------

