# Do NT authors quote the LXX?



## TimV (Nov 15, 2009)

OK, so I've been trying to go through the King James Only controversy systematically. Partly to help me understand the subject matter myself.

The first point was addressed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/

where I think most people following the discussion are on the same page. Specifically there were Greek translations (was a Greek translation) of the Old Testament during the time of Christ, and these were widely available and read, and were familiar to Jews and early Christians. For brevity we refer to these translations as the Septuagint, or LXX for short. We all, or at least the majority of us acknowledge that we really don't know exactly how the LXX looked like or how many versions were out there, but we reject the theory held mostly by Fundamental Baptist King James Only writers that there wasn't a Greek translation of the Bible widely available during the time of Christ.

Again, for purposes of discussion, the LXX stands for any Greek translation of the Old Testament widely available during the time of Christ.

So, the next subject I would like to address is whether or not authors of the New Testament quoted the LXX in preference to the Hebrew text which they had at the time.

As before, please limit the discussion to the specific question!!

Thanks to all.


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> Again, for purposes of discussion, the LXX stands for any Greek translation of the Old Testament widely available during the time of Christ.



Please show me where I can obtain a copy for reference purposes? I am not asking for a Greek translation of Daniel, or of Isaiah, or any other individual book, but a Greek translation of the Old Testament which is known to have been available during the time of Christ.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 15, 2009)

And, again, I feel I have to throw in the obligatory statement that the question of the use/no-use of the LXX in the NT has **nothing** inherently to do with the KJV-only issue. Simply because KJV-only people *also* believe (necessarily?) that the NT does not freely quote the LXX is largely irrelevant; even as these types are also often strong about inerrancy of scripture, it is not therefore the case that inerrancy arises because of a KJV-only agenda. It is not even a TR/CT issue. It is something which is beyond the "mainstream" types of textual debates of today.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> So, the next subject I would like to address is whether or not authors of the New Testament quoted the LXX *in preference to* the Hebrew text which they had at the time.



To remove any ambiguity from your statement/question, I want to clarify something. Since, obviously, one cannot directly "quote" the Hebrew text while writing in Greek, are you asking whether the NT penmen ever considered two different readings (the Hebrew text reading, and an alternative Greek translation), determined the Hebrew to not be the accurate text and that the Greek translation was that wherein the true reading was preserved? I just need to clarify what you mean by the phrase "in preference to;" for this is a very different question than whether or not the NT makes use of the wording of a then-existent Greek translation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 16, 2009)

Verbal Plenary Inspiration? Original writings? Where does the Greek translation of Hebrew Text fit in? Can it be close? Maybe. But is it to be preferred? So what, the Deutercanical books were done also? When were they done? Does that make them inspired and quotable? Did Jesus quote them? I find the evidence lacking in presupposition and evidence that I have read. And we have have read some of the same stuff Tim. As I have mentioned before it is likely that the first five books of the Bible were done for sure by the time of Christ. 

If I am not mistaken John Owen and others believed the Greek OT quotes in the NT were conformed to the original writings of the NT authors instead of the other way around.


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2009)

> Please show me where I can obtain a copy for reference purposes? I am not asking for a Greek translation of Daniel, or of Isaiah, or any other individual book, but a Greek translation of the Old Testament which is known to have been available during the time of Christ.



I can't even show you a Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament from the time of Christ. The purpose of the other thread was to debate the existence of such, and this thread is for those who have, at least for the sake of argument, conceded it's existence.



> To remove any ambiguity from your statement/question, I want to clarify something. Since, obviously, one cannot directly "quote" the Hebrew text while writing in Greek, are you asking whether the NT penmen ever considered two different readings (the Hebrew text reading, and an alternative Greek translation), determined the Hebrew to not be the accurate text and that the Greek translation was that wherein the true reading was preserved?



Yes, but without the accurate part. They could indeed have thought both accurate. I don't know. I'd like to focus on something much simpler, and that is whether or not the overwhelming number of scholarly Christians from every age are right in saying that both a Hebrew and a Greek OT were quoted by NT authors. That they had more than one version of the Bible available and chose one in some places and another in other places.



> And, again, I feel I have to throw in the obligatory statement that the question of the use/no-use of the LXX in the NT has *nothing* inherently to do with the KJV-only issue.



It is quite easy to see that if there were a Greek version and a Hebrew version that differed, and NT authors used both then the fundamental argument of the KJO camp is stillborn. Since it would mean that God didn't of necessity preserve His Word in one single book, word for word without one single spelling mistake or other error, and have this book generally available to the church throughout the ages.



> Verbal Plenary Inspiration? Original writings? Where does the Greek translation of Hebrew Text fit in? Can it be close? Maybe. But is it to be preferred? So what, the Deutercanical books were done also? When were they done? Does that make them inspired and quotable? Did Jesus quote them? I find the evidence lacking in presupposition and evidence that I have read. And we have have read some of the same stuff Tim. As I have mentioned before it is likely that the first five books of the Bible were done for sure by the time of Christ.



As I showed on the other thread, in addition to the first five Books we have a scroll of the Minor Prophets, which is more than we have of even the New Testament. The only people I am aware of that claim only the first five books were translated at the time of Christ are some Independent Fundamental Baptists who tend to quote each other rather than engage in primary research. Which doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. They may be right. But the purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not there was a Greek translation of the Old Testament in wide circulation at the time. That was the purpose of the other thread.

These threads get side tracked, and there really isn't any reason for it. So, please let's limit ourselves to whether or not NT authors quoted from both Greek and Hebrew versions of the OT.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

Tim, yes, I realize the KJV-only crowd *also* rejects the fact that the NT quotes the LXX. But please stop insinuating that the latter has a necessary relation to the former.

Also, since you have repeatedly made this claim:


> I'd like to focus on something much simpler, and that is whether or not *the overwhelming number of scholarly Christians from every age are right in saying that both a Hebrew and a Greek OT were quoted by NT authors.*


I'd finally like to see evidence from each age (Patristic, early Medieval, late Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Orthodoxy, 18th Century, and 19th and 20th Centuries) that this is the case.

Finally, I've already stated repeatedly the older Reformed arguments for/against the issue; it should be clear that this was a Roman Catholic issue, not a "defend the KJV" issue. They considered it essential to defend the priority/authenticity of the Hebrew Original over a Greek Translation, for if the translation were "preferred" over the original in some cases, then how could we know when else the Hebrew text wasn't "right," or "preferable" to the translation -- we would be back to needing the Magisterium to inform us. Clearly, this is an entirely different issue than the KJV-only issue. Nor does it seem on-going manuscript or textual discoveries really make a difference. For instance, if we take Turretin's position, he could readily grant that the LXX we have today was in existence at the time of the NT -- it doesn't make a difference to his position. He had the same LXX, the same data before him that we do: so it can't simply be said, "The older theologians said these things without the light of recent discoveries."

I guess I'm just not sure as to why you hold this position in such contempt.


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2009)

> I'd finally like to see evidence from each age (Patristic, early Medieval, late Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Orthodoxy, 18th Century, and 19th and 20th Centuries) that this is the case.



That would be a good place to start. So, those who are well read on those ages please post.



> He had the same LXX, the same data before him that we do: so it can't simply be said, "The older theologians said these things without the light of recent discoveries."



I've never said that. I've said recent discoveries showed what the church has always taught about the subject is true. Specifically that there was a Greek translation of the OT in wide circulation at the time of Christ. And that if anyone still disagrees with that, please bring it up on the other thread, so this stays on topic.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I'd finally like to see evidence from each age (Patristic, early Medieval, late Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Orthodoxy, 18th Century, and 19th and 20th Centuries) that this is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a good place to start. So, those who are well read on those ages please post.


I have to stop you right there. _*You*_ have repeatedly made this claim. You should, then, be able to present the evidence. Otherwise, it seems you need to retract this oft-made statement.



TimV said:


> > He had the same LXX, the same data before him that we do: so it can't simply be said, "The older theologians said these things without the light of recent discoveries."
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said that. I've said recent discoveries showed what the church has always taught about the subject is true. Specifically that there was a Greek translation of the OT in wide circulation at the time of Christ. And that if anyone still disagrees with that, please bring it up on the other thread, so this stays on topic.


Good. So recent discoveries do not necessarily make a difference in deciding whether or not the NT quotes the LXX? Which means the older theologians can be equally brought to the same table as recent ones in this matter now? So then just to take one more step to keep from getting the thread sidetracked, we eliminate the claim that, do to recent discoveries, those who believe the NT does not quote the LXX are a part of a massive conspiracy theory? We're willing to say, "Okay, that's not really true"? And that the older position is still legitimate?

The first section of this post is the most important, however.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 16, 2009)

See the chart in this link for a comparison of NT quotes, MT, and Brenton's LXX. Caveats regarding the variations in LXX are mentioned and some resources noted.

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2009)

> I have to stop you right there. You have repeatedly made this claim. You should, then, be able to present the evidence. Otherwise, it seems you need to retract this oft-made statement.



I would like those who have formally studied this to chime in. Many people on this board will not take part in these discussions due to the previous nature of them. People who have had formal education in this subject have contacted me privately and told me this, so I am hoping that a more disciplined discussion will draw them out.

After work today I plan on starting with Augustine. And in addition, very early rabbinical objections to a Greek translation which seems to them slanted to a Christian perspective. Specifically that the Jews Ptolemy used were coerced, which means that early rabbinical writers took it for granted that the Greek OT differed from the Hebrew.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

Tim, I would just like to finally have one piece of tangible evidence for a claim you have tossed around almost every time this topic has been touched upon.

Also, when providing your evidence that "it has been the conclusion of the overwhelming number of Christian scholars in every age" that the NT quotes the LXX, be sure that the evidence supports your claim that they are doing so *in preference* to the Hebrew text. For, again, these two things are very different. A standard Reformed exegesis of the text of Heb. 10, for example (see, for instance, Beza's most influential annotations, or the Dutch or Westminster Annotations), is that the Spirit/penman makes use of the Greek Translation's wording *because* it correctly gives the sense of the authentic Hebrew text. I don't see how we can get around the simple fact that, for the Westminster Standards, the Hebrew original is _the_ touchstone and measuring rod by which all other texts must be measured. I seek demonstration as to how this is not the Reformed position.

[And, just in case any one will take this the wrong way, note well that this is _not_ a statement in anyway about whether the LXX can be helpful in adjudicating between various readings in the Hebrew text; it has nothing to do with the TR/CT debate, or about any particular Hebrew text; or calling the commitment of anyone to the confession into question based upon their use or reading of the LXX for various purposes.]


----------



## TimV (Nov 17, 2009)

As to the early church, there can be no question that the LXX was used exclusively as the basis for OT translation for the first 400 years. And that it was universally taken for granted that it differed from the Hebrew in places. Here is a portion of a letter from Augustine to Jerome, written in 403, expressing Augustine's objections to translating from the LXX



> In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.
> 
> For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong?


Letters of Augustine (No. 28, 71, 82) and the Letters of Jerome (No. 112) in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Translated into English with Prolegomena and Explanatory Notes under the Editorial Supervision of Henry Wace and Philip Schaff. (Oxford: Parker; New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890-1900).

And from Chapter 43 of the City of God



> For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other.



And Irenaeus on the LXX from Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1 pg.452



> For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.



On another thread someone asked how the ancients dealt with differences in translations. Here is Augustine from chapter 44 of the City of God



> But some one may say, "How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, 'Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' or forty days?" [Jon. iii. 4.] For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. *And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either*, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth.



So, taking things by time line, if anyone wants to quote someone from the first 400 years of the church who doubted that the LXX and Hebrew differed during the time of Christ, and the LXX couldn't be called the Word of God even with differences, please post that information.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 17, 2009)

Tim,

The First quote: This establishes only that Hebrew is not Greek and Greek is not Hebrew. Of course there will be "words missing" or "words present" in one and not the other. Some Bible translations into English, for instance, do the same sort of thing with italics.

The Second Quote: Establishes nothing else than that the LXX was 1.) Translated into Greek, and 2.) Was so more widely accepted than those of Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion that many didn't realize it was not the only Greek translation. It seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The Third Quote: Is simply false. For I highly doubt you would assert that the NT quotes the LXX *every time* it quotes the OT. If Augustine is simply speaking hyperbolically, then the statement amounts to no more than that the NT sometimes approves of the LXX's wording and makes use thereof. This the Reformed can readily grant, _*so long as it agrees with the Hebrew original*_. (Note also that this is the only quote which addresses whether or not the NT quotes the LXX).

The Fourth Quote: Do you really want to approve of this quote? In addition to placing the LXX and the Hebrew text on equal authority and telling us to believe both, it also tells us to *ignore* history: and since we affirm that the literal sense of scripture is the primary sense, this seems a bit tricky to do. This only demonstrates that Augustine does not agree that it is the Hebrew original to which appeal is to be made in all controversies: he has here placed the Original and Derivative on equal footing.



> So, taking things by time line, if anyone wants to quote someone from the first 400 years of the church who doubted that the LXX and Hebrew differed during the time of Christ, and the LXX couldn't be called the Word of God even with differences, please post that information.


So I don't think you're going to find anyone who asserts that the Hebrew original and the LXX translation always agree. Because they don't. At the same time, any translation is rightly called the Word of God, inasmuch as it agrees with the originals. So it should be of no surprise that people are going to refer to the LXX as the word of God or the scriptures.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Tim,
> 
> The First quote: This establishes only that Hebrew is not Greek and Greek is not Hebrew. Of course there will be "words missing" or "words present" in one and not the other. Some Bible translations into English, for instance, do the same sort of thing with italics.



Paul,

I don't understand your comment here. It appears that Tim's point was that the LXX was in existence and commonly accepted as a translation of the Hebrew OT. His first quote from Augustine says *exactly* that.



> In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book.
> 
> For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 17, 2009)

Pastor Greco, yes, I realize Augustine has said that (and it would be foolhardy not to concur!). Thank you for correcting me of my error in identifying the proper emphasis of Tim's quotation: I was focusing upon the part about the asterisks, thinking the post was designed to emphasize the differences between the two, and so ignored the proper emphasis. I was wrong.

Tim -- sorry I mistook the purpose of your posting that quotation!

Side note: I don't think anyone would disagree that the LXX was/is widely accepted as a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.


----------



## TimV (Nov 17, 2009)

> But some one may say, "How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, 'Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' or forty days?"



Does anyone participating in this thread contest that the LXX (defined as earlier in this post) was widely available at the time of Christ, and that it differed from the Hebrew Old Testament in places? Or at least that this was universally accepted during the first 400 years of the church?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 17, 2009)

The quotes from Augustine and Irenaeus don’t have anything to do with proving that the Greek OT “was widely available at the time of Christ”, only that it was so in the time of the two churchmen just noted, some 200 and 300 years later. And even in the time of Christ, one would ask, widely available where? In Egypt? Palestine? Rome?

Augustine is an interesting case. I’m glad you bring him up, so we can see the confusion that reigned in the early church over this matter. On the one hand, the only OT some of them knew (in the West) was the Latin, and in the East, the Greek. This explains Augustine’s remarks to Jerome, fearing that where his (later) Greek version differed from the Latin there would be harm caused in the churches by the discrepancies. (More on Jerome later, for he changed his view re the value of the LXX later in his life, and wrote about it.)

This is an example of my view that throughout the early church there was an _adequate preservation_ of Scripture, although not – in some areas – _preservation in the minutiae_. This adequate preservation was such that the souls of God’s elect would be saved and the churches sustained.

One can go to the CCEL online _City of God_ Table of Contents and in your browser’s search function enter “septuagint” and you will find the places below referred to.

---------

In Chapter 13. “Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint”, Augustine says: “I would have no manner of doubt that when any diversity is found in the books, since both cannot be true to fact, we do well to believe in preference that language out of which the translation was made into another by translators.”	

---------

Chapter 43. “Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations”. Here A’s confusion is quite nuanced:

“For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator.”​
This quote from chap 43 shows Augustine’s odd view that the Holy Spirit sometimes said one thing through the Hebrew version, and another – conflicting! – thing through the Greek (LXX) – apparently a divine prerogative in his view. 

And this view comes from Augustine’s believing the tale of 70 Jewish elders all being sequestered in separate rooms and coming up with the exact same translation of the Hebrew, to the letter – this proof that the Holy Spirit was in them, and that this version was *as inspired* as the Hebrew. What was he going to say, that the version of God’s word he had was faulty? He had to resolve the discrepancy somehow.

To continue your quote from Augustine’s chap 44 of _City of God_ exactly where you left off – demonstrating a bit of exegesis which would not pass muster in “the overwhelming majority” (since you love to use that hyperbolic phrase ad nauseum!) of Reformed seminaries today: 

These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale’s belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the Church of the Gentiles, to wit, as brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the Church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ Himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days: by the forty, because He spent that number of days with His disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because He rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depth of the prophecy, as if they had said, In the forty days seek Him in whom thou mayest also find the three days,—the one thou wilt find in His ascension, the other in His resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers, of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same Spirit hath spoken. I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine.​
The trouble with Augustine’s view is that he believed the reports that preceded him, namely the “letter of Aristeas”, and Philo’s account of the 70’s “inspiration”: “They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each.” (ISBE, Vol. IV, p. 2723). The ISBE goes on to say that Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria were also smitten by this “miraculous” account, embellishments being added along the way, so that otherwise sober men gave credence to the story. If it was indeed “inspired by God” as was being asserted, then men like Augustine would have to conclude as he did. And note, this Greek version was indeed the only Old Testament that many Christians knew. Was it better then nothing? Indeed it was! It was adequate for the Lord to move upon the hearts and minds of men.

This, in his own words, is the superstition that afflicted Augustine’s mind (from _Christian Doctrine_, also at CCEL):

“Now among translations themselves the Italian (_Itala_) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it?”​
In our days we would call this an “urban legend”, and you could google it and discern the hoax. I wonder how many such “legends” afflict the Christian community today, scholars and all?


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 17, 2009)

> The quotes from Augustine and Irenaeus don’t have anything to do with proving that the Greek OT “was widely available at the time of Christ”, only that it was so in the time of the two churchmen just noted, some 200 and 300 years later. And even in the time of Christ, one would ask, widely available where? In Egypt? Palestine? Rome?



Ante-Nicene Fathers date Irenaeus from A.D. 120-202. Is this date disputed?

-----Added 11/17/2009 at 05:29:42 EST-----

Justin Martyr

Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 pg. 279


> These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others.



-----Added 11/17/2009 at 05:44:45 EST-----

Philo

Philo: On the Life of Moses, II



> II. (37) Therefore, being settled in a secret place, and nothing even being present with them except the elements of nature, the earth, the water, the air, and the heaven, concerning the creation of which they were going in the first place to explain the sacred account; for the account of the creation of the world is the beginning of the law; they, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. (38) And yet who is there who does not know that every language, and the Greek language above all others, is rich in a variety of words, and that it is possible to vary a sentence and to paraphrase the same idea, so as to set it forth in a great variety of manners, adapting many different forms of expression to it at different times. But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses. (41) On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh. (42) And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and feasted with their relations and friends, thinking the shore at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace. (43) *In this way those admirable, and incomparable, and most desirable laws were made known to all people, whether private individuals or kings*, and this too at a period when the nation had not been prosperous for a long time.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 17, 2009)

> "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." -Acts 15:21, spoken by James at the Jerusalem Council



I don't think this verse has been brought up yet. The Jerusalem Council, as you know, was convened to address the issue of whether the new Gentile Christians had to keep the Law of Moses, and the Council decided on a relatively short list for them to keep, but no further burden. In the verse above, James cites the public reading of Moses as further reason not to burden the Gentiles. Doesn't this indicate that Gentiles could hear the Law in Jewish synagogues in the Diaspora? If so, I would think this would indicate it was read in Greek. Am I off base here?


----------



## TimV (Nov 17, 2009)

> Augustine is an interesting case. I’m glad you bring him up, so we can see the confusion that reigned in the early church over this matter. On the one hand, the only OT some of them knew (in the West) was the Latin, and in the East, the Greek.



If one takes the trouble to actually read the letters Augustine wrote to Jerome rather than to accept the writings of KJO Fundamental Baptist authors about them, one is quick to see that there were no Latin translations of the OT generally available to people in the West except those done from the Septuagint, and Greek was very widely spoken in the West. This was the main point of Augustine. For the first 400 years of the Church the Septuagint was the ecumenical text in both the East and West. This was Augustine's objection to Jerome's radical idea to translate the OT from the Hebrew. That there would henceforth no longer be an ecumenical text. Which was the Septuagint. Much like the TR was for the equivalent number of years after 1516.

Now, if there are still people following this thread who are convinced that for the first 400 years of the Christian era there were writers who did not believe that a Greek translation of the OT, during the time of Christ, was both generally available and differed in some places from the Hebrew, could you please post their names and some quotes from them?

Paul, do you concede that for the first 400 years of church history the overwhelming, of not universal opinion of Christian writers who discussed this subject believed both that a Greek translation of the OT existed during the time of Christ and it differed in places from the Hebrew version? I would appreciate a yes or no answer! Whether or not they were confused, as Steve suggests, is beside the point that you wanted me to prove. Let's settle this, and we can move on to the next era if you still object to my statement that the overwhelming number of Christians who wrote about the subject over the past 2000 years believed that there was a Greek translation of the OT generally available during the time of Christ and that it differed in places from the Hebrew.

Thanks to all for their restraint so far, and patience with me!


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2009)

TimV said:


> Does anyone participating in this thread contest that the LXX (defined as earlier in this post) was widely available at the time of Christ, and that it differed from the Hebrew Old Testament in places? Or at least that this was universally accepted during the first 400 years of the church?



While you refuse to identify this "LXX" and point it out so that it can be referenced, no person is in any position to answer yes or no.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 17, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone participating in this thread contest that the LXX (defined as earlier in this post) was widely available at the time of Christ, and that it differed from the Hebrew Old Testament in places? Or at least that this was universally accepted during the first 400 years of the church?
> ...



Is the AV any less in existence due to the fact that it was published and revised over more than a century a half dozen times?


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Is the AV any less in existence due to the fact that it was published and revised over more than a century a half dozen times?



Of course it is in existence; but I can point to a 1611 printing and all subsequent printings which utilised revisions. Tim is asking us to comment on a vague term which he calls "LXX" without telling us where it is to be found. I think he knows he is going to have a very difficult task in showing us where it is to be found for the simple reason that this so-called universal agreement of scholars actually concurs in saying there was no such thing as the "LXX" at the time of Christ. What we actually have are various oral and written traditions which scholars now accept as the "LXX." Flowing from that, there are numerous Christian adoptions of the "LXX." There is no single literary achievement known as the Greek translation of the Old Testament which is known to have existed and been widely used at the time of Christ.


----------



## TimV (Nov 17, 2009)

> While you refuse to identify this "LXX" and point it out so that it can be referenced, no person is in any position to answer yes or no.



And I've answered that objection already. You can't even show a Hebrew OT text or a Greek NT text, yet you are willing to "receive" (your own word) the TR rendering of Rev. 16:5, which has literally no textual support. In fact, the over 200 mostly Byzantine witnesses we have to this text stand against the TR version which you by faith "receive".

The question is, again, is there anyone reading this thread who does not think the overwhelming, if not unanimous number of Christian writers dealing with the subject during the first 4 centuries after Christ believed that a Greek translation of the OT existed during the time of Christ and that it differed from the Hebrew in some areas.

This is not a dishonest question. This is not a trick question. This is not a hard question. This is a very fair question, and a person should be able to answer yes or no, and I'm bothered that it isn't being answered, although we may need more time.

I do not need to reference or identify anything, since I'm talking about the opinions of others. Did Augustine, et. al. believe this or not. Having a copy in my hand has just nothing at all to do with the question. I don't have have a video of the Great Flood to ask if Irenaeus believed in it or not.

Thanks in advance to everyone for staying on topic.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2009)

TimV said:


> I do not need to reference or identify anything, since I'm talking about the opinions of others. Did Augustine, et. al. believe this or not. Having a copy in my hand has just nothing at all to do with the question. I don't have have a video of the Great Flood to ask if Irenaeus believed in it or not.



I think you do need to identify the text of the LXX which you believe was widely available in the time of Christ since that is what you are asking about. Nobody is asking you to produce a first century ms.; all that is desired is the text of the LXX which is believed to be the original text then in use regardless of how many or how old the copies might be.

Irenaeus' testimony is easily located in Against Heresies, 3.21.2: "Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they— for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians— sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. *For all of them read out the common translation* [which they had prepared] *in the very same words and the very same names*, *from beginning to end*, *so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God*."

Is this what you mean by the LXX?


----------



## TimV (Nov 18, 2009)

> Is this what you mean by the LXX?



I said in the first post on this thread



> Specifically there were Greek translations (was a Greek translation) of the Old Testament during the time of Christ, and these were widely available and read, and were familiar to Jews and early Christians. For brevity we refer to these translations as the Septuagint, or LXX for short. We all, or at least the majority of us acknowledge that we really don't know exactly how the LXX looked like or how many versions were out there....Again, for purposes of discussion, the LXX stands for any Greek translation of the Old Testament widely available during the time of Christ.



We know without a shadow of a doubt that there were small differences between Hebrew OTs at the time, but we can at the same time say without a shadow of a doubt that there was a Hebrew version at the time.

And I'm not even asking that much. I'm asking for opinions during the first 400 years of the Church.


----------



## p.mitch3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Watching this discussion from a distance and not wanting to derail the discussion I would like some clarification.

Is the main point of contention that there existed Greek translations during the time of Christ or that there existed “a uniform edition known to the Jewish people before and in the time of Christ”?


----------



## TimV (Nov 18, 2009)

> Watching this discussion from a distance and not wanting to derail the discussion I would like some clarification.
> 
> Is the main point of contention that there existed Greek translations during the time of Christ or that there existed “a uniform edition known to the Jewish people before and in the time of Christ”?



No, the purpose is to set up some agreed upon parameters for a discussion of whether or not NT authors quoted from more than one version of the Old Testament, which versions differed in places from each other. I have made the claim that the overwhelming majority of Christian authors who have written about the subject have said "yes". Paul Korte asked me to prove that, and I've started with the first 400 years of the Church, when Jerome broke tradition and translated the OT using the current Hebrew Bible rather than Greek Bibles/Bibles as was the custom before then.

My intent so far is not to do anything except ground work. The first thread was for evidence that there was at least one Greek translation of the OT that existed during the time of Christ.

This thread is to discuss whether or not that or those Greek translations of the OT differed from the existing Hebrew version.

At this point, people participating on this thread have provided several quotes from church fathers who have said that yes, there was at least one Greek translation of the OT, and that it differed in several places from the Hebrew version commonly in use at that time.

So far Paul has not commented. I am hoping that he will provide quotes from Church fathers who have said that there were no Greek translations of the OT, or that there were but they did not differ in places from the Hebrew version or versions. Either that or

1: Concede that I have the right to say that the overwhelming number of Christian authors writing on the subject have believed that there was at least one Greek version of the OT widely available during the time of Christ and it differed from the Hebrew version.

2: Concede that during the Patristic era the Church fathers believed that there was a Greek translation available and it differed from the Hebrew but still demand proof from other eras besides the patristic era of the church.

I am trying to move this subject along methodically, since whenever the King James Version Only theory comes up, saying that God was obligated by His promises to provide the Church His Word, perfectly preserved in one place and generally available without spelling mistakes or other errors throughout history, the discussion suffers from a lack of discipline (and I've personally been at fault as well as others).


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

TimV said:


> And I'm not even asking that much. I'm asking for opinions during the first 400 years of the Church.



But as has been pointed out to you, the belief of the first 400 years of the church rested on the acceptance of the "72" fable. The fathers didn't receive this LXX on the basis of evidence but on faith. The modern scholars, on which you place so much weight, reject the fable and approach the LXX on the basis of evidence. So which is it? The inspired, "LXX only" version of the fathers, or the uninspired, empirically reconstructed LXX of the scholars? One is unable to answer your question while you fluctuate between the two.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 18, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *TimV*
> _So far Paul has not commented. I am hoping that he will provide quotes from Church fathers who have said that there were no Greek translations of the OT, or that there were but they did not differ in places from the Hebrew version or versions. Either that or
> 
> 1: Concede that I have the right to say that the overwhelming number of Christian authors writing on the subject have believed that there was at least one Greek version of the OT widely available during the time of Christ and it differed from the Hebrew version.
> ...


Tim, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to count me out of this one. I think it was a mistake for me to get involved, and thus I apologize for taking up your time. But I can see already that this just isn't going to go anywhere productive. The claim I asked for evidence for was that "*the majority* _in every age_ think the NT quotes the LXX _*in preference*_ to the Hebrew original." Producing a few quotes from Augustine that there was a/were several Greek translations of the OT in the time of Christ, or that there was a Greek translation widely received in Augustine's own day simply has little to do with the claim you made, especially as I've never even so much as hinted that I would disagree with that statement.

Perhaps if you want to narrow the focus a bit, I will stick with the conversation (if not, that's perfectly reasonable, as well): I don't even need you to show me "in every age" anymore -- can you simply demonstrate to me that "a majority" (or even "a sizable minority") of Reformed theologians from a century on either side of the writing of our confessions claim that the NT quotes the LXX *in preference* to the Hebrew original? The "in preference to" portion is of the utmost importance. See post #12: those theologians could state that the NT followed the LXX in places _because_ the Greek translation agreed with the Hebrew. Again, I do not see how one can circumvent the fact that, in our confession, the Hebrew text is that by which all controversies of religion are to be settled.


----------



## TimV (Nov 18, 2009)

> But as has been pointed out to you, the belief of the first 400 years of the church rested on the acceptance of the "72" fable. The fathers didn't receive this LXX on the basis of evidence but on faith. The modern scholars, on which you place so much weight, reject the fable and approach the LXX on the basis of evidence. So which is it? The inspired, "LXX only" version of the fathers, or the uninspired, empirically reconstructed LXX of the scholars? One is unable to answer your question while you fluctuate between the two.



Thanks Pastor Winzer. It's such a pleasure having someone of your moral and intellectual prowess on the board. I'm trying to move this along, but I freely admit that I, as an agriculturalist haven't got the best academic background, and I appreciate your patience.

At this point, there is not only no empirically reconstructed LXX, or _vorlage_ as those who study this term it, but rather the opposite; it's accepted that we probably will never know exactly what the original looked like. It's even more difficult than the Hebrew, which everyone concedes had VERY few differences in various manuscripts during the time of Christ. I've read the figure of 5% differences, most of which are of the sort that really don't make any difference at all.

You ask



> So which is it?



and I've answered "either". At this point, I want to know if for the first 400 years of Church history....well, I've probably said this a dozen times on this thread, so I won't repeat it. I don't think I've fluctuated at all. I think that you are jumping a step further than I want to take this at this point. I want to make sure those people who are following but not necessarily participating understand that when I say that *the vast majority of Christians who've written on this subject over the last 2000 years have held that there were in existence during the time of Christ both Hebrew and Greek translations of the Old Testament, and that they differed in some places* I mean just that.

I will now ask you to be patient with me, and deal specifically with the bolded part of my statement. Please! I'm not asking whether they were right or not!!! Or whether they believed in inspiration, separate cells, etc...!!! Could we please save that until later?

Thanks! I don't have to tell you what I think of your abilities or orthodoxy, since you've seen my thanks and support many times on unrelated posts that you've made.


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

TimV said:


> I will now ask you to be patient with me, and deal specifically with the bolded part of my statement. Please! I'm not asking whether they were right or not!!! Or whether they believed in inspiration, separate cells, etc...!!! Could we please save that until later?



I am happy to be patient with you, but I don't think you are being patient and taking the time to grasp the point which needs to be grasped in order to answer your question properly and accurately. Augustine, for example, only allowed one LXX, the inspired LXX. He did so on the basis that the fable was true. This is something altogether different from the oral and written Greek translations which the modern scholars accept. Surely you can see that.

Your question has now changed its terms of reference. Your original statement was, "the LXX stands for any Greek translation of the Old Testament widely available during the time of Christ." Your present statement is, "there were in existence during the time of Christ both Hebrew and Greek translations of the Old Testament, and that they differed in some places." Now, I can accept that there were Greek translations (oral and written) of different portions of the OT during the time of Christ which differed from the Hebrew. I cannot accept that there was a Greek translation (singular) of the Old Testament (complete) which was widely available (i.e., uniformly used) at the time of Christ. They are two very different propositions. I think an individual would have to believe the fable in order to accept the second proposition; the first proposition, however, can be established on historical evidence.


----------



## TimV (Nov 18, 2009)

I'm "changing my terms of reference" to try to make the question as broad as possible to get a straight yes or no answer, but it's not working with you.



> I cannot accept that there was a Greek translation (singular) of the Old Testament (complete) which was widely available (i.e., uniformly used)



You equate widely available with uniformly used.

That is like a future historian saying "The ESV was widely available during the 21st century and that means no other translations were used". It makes no sense at all. 

So, does anyone else doubt that the Church fathers felt there was a Greek translation of the OT during the time of Christ which differed from the Hebrew?


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

TimV said:


> You equate widely available with uniformly used.
> 
> That is like a future historian saying "The ESV was widely available during the 21st century and that means no other translations were used". It makes no sense at all.



I was clarifying what widely available would mean in terms of a single translation. It is like a future historian saying there was only one ESV that was widely used, and where that was widely used it was uniform.



TimV said:


> So, does anyone else doubt that the Church fathers felt there was a Greek translation of the OT during the time of Christ which differed from the Hebrew?



I haven't doubted this point. I have agreed with it; but I have stated that they held this because of their belief in a fable, and what they believed (a single, uniform LXX) is not what modern day scholars maintain when they use the term LXX.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 19, 2009)

Can someone help clue me in on the point or else verify that I am understanding the significance of the issue at hand?

If I am following this correctly, the underlying issue that is being danced around is the implications of the subject matter upon the manner in which God has preserved His word? 

The argument for the use of the LXX in NT citations is ultimately used to show that preservation does not require word for word exactness. 

The argument against the use of the LXX in NT citations flows from a conviction that preservation requires "word for word" exactness.

This is not do address the merits of either position nor to say that the question is, in all circles, boiled down to this issue, but is it is heart of the issue in this thread?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 19, 2009)

Reviewing the thread....

Tim says (post 6),

“...in addition to the first five Books we have a scroll of the Minor Prophets, which is more than we have of even the New Testament.”​
According to Jobes and Silva in their _Intro to the Sept_ (discussed here), we do not have “five books [and] a scroll” of the Greek OT, but rather “fragments of the Pentateuch, specifically Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy .... [and] an entire scroll of the Minor Prophets in Greek” (p. 59). They later add fragments of Exodus to the Pentateuch list (pp. 168-169), and say of the Minor Prophets scroll “it preserves twenty-four fragmentary columns (much more text than the Pentateuch fragments found at Qumran), written in the hand of two different scribes.” (p. 171) These are not entire scrolls, which your remarks made it sound like, but fragments.

----------

Mitch (and Robert), the _ultimate_ point of contention is, per Tim,

(Post 6) “It is quite easy to see that if there were a Greek version and a Hebrew version that differed, and NT authors used both then the fundamental argument of the KJO camp is stillborn. Since it would mean that God didn't of necessity preserve His Word in one single book, word for word without one single spelling mistake or other error...”​
Ultimately this is the design of the thread, an attempt to debunk the reliability of the King James Bible, and the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it. Some folks have a hatred and loathing of the AV, just as there are rabid KJO people who go after those who use anything else.

Personally, while I hold to the AV priority view, I respect those who use other versions, and acknowledge these other versions to be legitimate Bibles (and not “per-versions” as some boorishly assert), but with readings / variants that are not legitimate. Big difference. 

To some, the unity of the Body of Christ is of no great import, their personal views having the priority in their minds, and do not care if they denigrate blood-bought brothers and sisters, or subject them to contempt, ridicule, and calumny. Important as the matter of a sound Bible is, the unity of brethren in the Spirit of Christ comes before that.

--------

Tim says (post 13),

"As to the early church, there can be no question that the LXX was used exclusively as the basis for OT translation for the first 400 years. And that it was universally taken for granted that it differed from the Hebrew in places. Here is a portion of a letter from Augustine to Jerome, written in 403, expressing Augustine's objections to translating from the LXX"​
I think you mean A’s objection to J’s translating from the *Hebrew*. Be that as it may, you then proceed to quote from a portion of A’s letter to J, which supposedly supports your statement, “...there can be no question that the LXX was used exclusively as the basis for OT translation for the first 400 years. And that it was universally taken for granted that it differed from the Hebrew in places.”

As to the first part, you would be more accurate to say “exclusively as the basis for OT translation from approximately 100 to 400 AD”, because during the apostolic age you have no warrant to say that. If you think you do, I’d like to see it.

In post 21 you say, Tim,

“If one takes the trouble to actually read the letters Augustine wrote to Jerome rather than to accept the writings of KJO Fundamental Baptist authors about them, one is quick to see that there were no Latin translations of the OT generally available to people in the West except those done from the Septuagint”​
I forgot you had X-ray vision and could see what I was reading all the way over here in the Mediterranean! In my remarks on Jerome in post 18 I should have said his _later_ Greek version (from the Hebrew) prompted the remarks from Augustine. I do have the full set of the church fathers in hard copy, as well as access to it online. If your X-ray vision was working you would know what I was reading.

I think it would be of interest for folks to see what Augustine said right after the quote you gave from his letter to J (Chap III, 5.):

“A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church.

Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew Mss. were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation,—a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use.”​
Pressure was put on Jerome for his Hebrew translation causing tumult among those used to chanting and reading the Greek version! Those raised up in error resisting the more accurate Hebrew. We see the equivalent of this today too.


Josh, you said (post 19),

Ante-Nicene Fathers date Irenaeus from A.D. 120-202. Is this date disputed?​
Well, actually it is, not that it makes much difference. _The Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church_ lists it as 130, as do others. He entered into the Bishopric of Lyons in 178, and wrote his _Against Heretics_ in approx 185. Okay, so I’ll amend what I wrote to read, 

“The quotes from Augustine and Irenaeus don’t have anything to do with proving that the Greek OT “was widely available at the time of Christ”, only that it was so in the time of the two churchmen just noted, some 160 and 300 years later.”​
Let’s even say 150. The NIV has only been around since 1973 or so, and look at how it’s taken hold in 36 years. Granted, all writing done in the early centuries was done by hand, but that didn’t stop its spread like wildfire. It was the true Word of God among men! So very easily the Greek OT could have proliferated from 150 AD on to where it was indeed used almost “exclusively as the basis for OT translation” to about 400 AD. But that doesn’t touch the first 150 years, during the life of Christ and throughout the first century.

So what do the quotes of Irenaeus and Augustine prove? These were two men (and there were others) thoroughly convinced by the fables handed down to them about the direct inspiration of the translation in Egypt, and this fed into their views. What, are we counting heads, even those who were deceived by superstition, or are we _*weighing*_ heads, to get intelligent and informed views?

--------

(post 6)

It was asked you, Tim, “Please show me where I can obtain a copy for reference purposes?”

And you replied, “I can't even show you a Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament from the time of Christ.”

It was said to you again,

(Post 22) “While you refuse to identify this "LXX" and point it out so that it can be referenced, no person is in any position to answer yes or no.”​
To which you responded,

(Post 25) “And I've answered that objection already. You can't even show a Hebrew OT text or a Greek NT text, yet you are willing to ‘receive’ (your own word) the TR rendering of Rev. 16:5, which has literally no textual support. In fact, the over 200 mostly Byzantine witnesses we have to this text stand against the TR version which you by faith ‘receive’.”​
To answer this: First of all, we aren’t talking about one of your favorite verses (Rev. 16:5), and if you wish others to remain on topic you might as well do so yourself. This poisoning the well fallacy of logic is inappropriate here in this discussion. We’re not talking of the difficulties of Revelation, but of the Septuagint. This is a red herring, a smokescreen for your inability to directly answer a question. Are you equating the AV priority position of “receiving” the reading of Rev. 16:5 with your “receiving” a 1st century standardized Greek OT?

Of course we “can’t show a Hebrew OT text or a Greek NT text” – the original manuscripts – but the question was (and which you either don’t understand or else just prefer to evade) can you produce a copy – an edition – of the 1st century LXX you talk about, the textform, just one settled edition of it? Now we all know – yourself included – you cannot, for even the LXX scholars admit it doesn’t exist. On the other hand, we can produce editions of the Hebrew and of the Greek, be they the Masoretic editions of the Hebrew, or, for the NT, the CT, MT/Byz, or TR editions. Whether arrived at by evidence *or by faith* you cannot produce your theoretical 1st century LXX, for it exists only in your imagination.

Maurice Robinson said regarding text-critical hypotheses,

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the “Introduction” to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.​
As much as you may loathe and ridicule the AV priority position, we do have a sound and rational approach, albeit based upon faith-engendered presuppositions. You really have nothing, and even the LXX scholars (I refer to Jobes and Silva here, per the previous discussion) acknowledge this. They are laboring to try to remedy this, but they have not yet.

---------

Austin (post 20): re Acts 15:21, J.A. Alexander’s, _Acts: Geneva Series of Commentaries_, Vol. 2, p. 87 (Banner of Truth), says,

”_From ancient generations_ is a much stronger expression than _from ancient days_ in v. 7, and can hardly denote any thing, in this connection , but the immemorial use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Jewish worship...”​
As the Hebrew was targumed into Aramaic in Palestine for those Jews who didn’t know Hebrew, so it also could have been targumed into Greek for the God-fearers and proselytes in the diaspora. There no doubt were Hellenized synagogues as well where the Scriptures were read in Greek, and the service was in that language also. There were likely both.

--------


Tim asks (posts 17 and 25),

“Does anyone participating in this thread contest that the LXX (defined as earlier in this [thread]) was widely available at the time of Christ, and that it differed from the Hebrew Old Testament in places? Or at least that this was universally accepted during the first 400 years of the church?”

“The question is, again, is there anyone reading this thread who does not think the overwhelming, if not unanimous number of Christian writers dealing with the subject during the first 4 centuries after Christ believed that a Greek translation of the OT existed during the time of Christ and that it differed from the Hebrew in some areas.”​
Widely available? We really don’t know in terms of numbers and places. Were there copies of some OT portions, even books, in Jerusalem during the time of Christ? I would think so. (Acts 6:1, 9 shows there were Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem, and likely a synagogue for such.) Did these differ from the Hebrew? The fragments that have come down to us likely show there are differences, even if but minor (though I haven’t had opportunity to compare and state this definitively – if you know of any published differences please share that), and the currently extant editions of the LXX definitely illustrate this. Did the apostles and the Lord Jesus know of the Greek material, and perhaps read them? I would think so. Did they ever choose these Greek translations in preference to the Hebrew Scriptures when writing the NT? No. Nor is there any – not one! – piece of papyrus written in Greek before 150 AD that any writer of the New testament used for a quotation so as to confirm this. As has been said, they may well have used a Greek OT portion that was in accord with the Hebrew and used that (so as not to “invent the wheel twice”).

Were there, as you have stated, differences between the editions of the Hebrew OT that existed in the time of Christ? Yes. But there was a standardized one, and the Lord spoke of it a number of times, saying that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew letter would be changed or broken in it. Where there is a pure standard, there are always copies, and counterfeits as well.

Was the fact there were at least portions of a Greek OT available (I have spoken on “widely” above) which differed from the Hebrew, and was this “universally accepted” during the first 400 years of the church? No doubt there were portions of a Greek OT, and most everyone (at least in the church) knew of it. What this consisted of – in terms of the books represented – and what the readings were, we don’t know. I mean, we can be pretty sure there was the Pentateuch, and probably many other books. I am talking of in the time of the Lord Jesus now. As to whether there was a standardized version, we have no idea at all – no evidence at all.

So, there were Greek OT portions in the time of Christ. But the NT authors did not use the Greek translation where it differed from the Hebrew in meaning. They did not ever *prefer* it over the reading of the Hebrew when it differed.

---------

I will have to withdraw from the conversation for a few days, for the sake of sermon preparation.


----------



## TimV (Nov 19, 2009)

> Mitch (and Robert), the ultimate point of contention is, per Tim,
> 
> (Post 6) “It is quite easy to see that if there were a Greek version and a Hebrew version that differed, and NT authors used both then the fundamental argument of the KJO camp is stillborn. Since it would mean that God didn't of necessity preserve His Word in one single book, word for word without one single spelling mistake or other error...”
> Ultimately this is the design of the thread, an attempt to debunk the reliability of the King James Bible, and the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it. Some folks have a hatred and loathing of the AV, just as there are rabid KJO people who go after those who use anything else.



This sort of thinking is common among the largely dispensational fundamental baptists who form the bulk of the King James Only movement. It's an either or mentality. I use the NKJ and ESV each about half the time, and love both versions, but by saying that I doubt that "God is a liar and He didn't preserve His Word" if there are errors of any kind in the textus receptus, then I automatically hate and loath the KJV. Floyd Jones, whom Steve heavily relies on says on page 181 of his Which Version Is the Bible?



> This cannot be over emphasized, for unless we come by faith to a
> commitment that God has kept His promises and providentially
> preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus itself and not merely in the
> Greek majority readings, the final form of the text will forever be
> unsettled in our hearts.





> If I am following this correctly, the underlying issue that is being danced around is the implications of the subject matter upon the manner in which God has preserved His word?
> 
> The argument for the use of the LXX in NT citations is ultimately used to show that preservation does not require word for word exactness.
> 
> The argument against the use of the LXX in NT citations flows from a conviction that preservation requires "word for word" exactness.



Exactly, as you can see by the above quote.




> To some, the unity of the Body of Christ is of no great import, their personal views having the priority in their minds, and do not care if they denigrate blood-bought brothers and sisters, or subject them to contempt, ridicule, and calumny. Important as the matter of a sound Bible is, the unity of brethren in the Spirit of Christ comes before that.



Anyone who has been following these thread here, or who have been reading the links that you, Steve, have used to support your view know exactly from which camp comes denigration, ridicule, contempt and calumny.




> Tim says (post 13),
> 
> "As to the early church, there can be no question that the LXX was used exclusively as the basis for OT translation for the first 400 years.



Steve replies



> As to the first part, you would be more accurate to say “exclusively as the basis for OT translation from approximately 100 to 400 AD”, because during the apostolic age you have no warrant to say that. If you think you do, I’d like to see it.



You are insisting that I prove a negative. I and others have quoted people living at the time making that claim. Please show that Augustine et. al. were wrong in their thinking by a contemporary source.



> Of course we “can’t show a Hebrew OT text or a Greek NT text” – the original manuscripts – but the question was (and which you either don’t understand or else just prefer to evade) can you produce a copy – an edition – of the 1st century LXX you talk about, the textform, just one settled edition of it? Now we all know – yourself included – you cannot, for even the LXX scholars admit it doesn’t exist. On the other hand, we can produce editions of the Hebrew and of the Greek, be they the Masoretic editions of the Hebrew, or, for the NT, the CT, MT/Byz, or TR editions. Whether arrived at by evidence or by faith you cannot produce your theoretical 1st century LXX, for it exists only in your imagination.



Obviously. Origen was working on the same sort of thing with the Septuagint that Erasmus was with the Greek NT. He'd done 50 volumes, but they're mostly lost to us. I truly can't see where you are going with this.




> Were there, as you have stated, differences between the editions of the Hebrew OT that existed in the time of Christ? Yes. But there was a standardized one, and the Lord spoke of it a number of times, saying that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew letter would be changed or broken in it. Where there is a pure standard, there are always copies, and counterfeits as well.



That is bare assertion. It's interesting that from the beginning I've not claimed there was a whole copy of a standardised copy of the LXX available to scholars, yet it's being demanded that I provide one. Now there's a claim that there was a standardised Hebrew Bible. So I guess I should ask for you to show me one.



> Pressure was put on Jerome for his Hebrew translation causing tumult among those used to chanting and reading the Greek version! Those raised up in error resisting the more accurate Hebrew. We see the equivalent of this today too.



Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!! When Dr. White asked Rob whether he would be willing to change the _textus receptus_ in some few places where there was no Byzantine witness to certain readings he said "Yes, I would be willing". But there are those who would not be willing, and for the exact same reasons as those people 16 centuries ago.

I'll plan on waiting a few days to allow those who what to provide more citations of people from the first 400 years of the Church dealing with whether or not a Greek OT existed during the time of Christ and whether or not it differed from the Hebrew. I can't see any reason to hurry.

Thanks


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 19, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade,



> Ultimately this is the design of the thread, an attempt to debunk the reliability of the King James Bible, and the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it.



Actually, that isn't hard to do. The study of Biblical Hebrew, for example, was in its infancy at the time of the translation of the KJV. There are places where the KJV simply erred in its translation of the Hebrew, but there are many places where the KJV translators were simply ignorant of certain facts of Northwest Semitic Philology which we have learned through the discovery and decipherment of Akkadian, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic, as well as the discovery of several Northwest Semitic Inscriptions that have been found since even the 1769 revision of the KJV.

Also, there are certain grammatical features of Biblical Hebrew with the KJV does not bring out. Since even the 1960's, you have the development of what has been called "textlinguistics." This has caused a great stir amongst Hebraists because it was used to show the function of the waw-hippuk verses the waw disjunctive. Modern translations reflect this distinction, while the KJV does not.

Of course, this is not meant to knock the KJV. For its time, it was a wonderful work of scholarship, and its knowledge of the English language is second to none since it was translated around the time of Shakesphere. However, we have learned a lot since that time, and I think that there is nothing wrong with using this information to produce ever better and more accurate translations.

Also, I think it is significant that the LXX and the Vulgate likewise contain these kinds of errors. There are cases where the LXX and the Vulgate likewise misunderstand the Hebrew, and these were the principle translations of the church for centuries. In fact, during the middle ages, hardly anyone could even read Hebrew, because it was considered to be the language of the Jews, and the Jews were considered heretics. Associating with a Jew, even to learn Hebrew, meant death. Very rare was the church father who knew both Greek and Hebrew. Likewise, you had the Alexandrian school of interpretation start to develop. This did not do wonders for the study of Hebrew during the middle ages.

However, I think that what I have found is that, no matter which translation you use, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the King James, or one of the modern translations, if you apply the same proper standards of interpretation to each text, you will not get different doctrines.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 19, 2009)

Steve,
you wrote:


> But that doesn’t touch the first 150 years, during the life of Christ and throughout the first century.


Would you please address your objections to the quote from Philo as evidence of a greek translation in use at the time of Christ.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 22, 2009)

Josh,

Do you believe the account of Philo?


Hello, Adam, welcome (belatedly) to PB!

You say that whichever version of the OT we use we will not get different doctrines. However, there _is_ one doctrine impacted by the multiple versions, and that is the providential preservation of Scripture. This doctrine was enunciated by the framers of the WCF, when they said,

1:8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.​
It was the contention of Rome that the Reformation was based upon a false foundation, and that their Hebrew Scripture was not preserved by God. The Reformers said they _had_ the Word of God intact and preserved in the apographs they possessed. Has modern scholarship now shown their stand to be false?

I appreciate your depth of study, and purpose. I cannot compete with you in this area. I see that you hold to the Westminster Standards. How do you understand what they say as regards the Scripture?

And there were men of Hebrew learning in those days. The book, _Translators Revived: Biographical Notes of the KJV Bible Translators_, by Alexander McClure, D.D., demonstrates this. Have you come across the book by Stephen Burnett, _From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) & Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century_ (Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 1996)?

Do we err to hold to the WCF and its view of the Greek and Hebrew texts?

Steve


----------



## TimV (Nov 28, 2009)

> It was the contention of Rome that the Reformation was based upon a false foundation, and that their Hebrew Scripture was not preserved by God. The Reformers said they had the Word of God intact and preserved in the apographs they possessed. Has modern scholarship now shown their stand to be false?



Another problem with restricting yourself to mainly one small school of teaching is that one is often fed false information. The Reformers in the main felt like Turretin, that there can be and are errors in the manuscripts of both the Hebrew and the _textus receptus_, but those errors are not enough to preclude calling them the Word of God. As far as I can tell, there are very few people in any era of history who held to the definition of preservation held by the King James Only movement.




> 'The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept
> into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the
> carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For
> this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 28, 2009)

Tim, if you're going to bring Turretin into this publicly, then it is necessary to consider all of what he says. Yes, of course he grants that faults "have crept into many sacred manuscripts." But he also says that these "are not universal in all the manuscripts," and that "they are not such as cannot be easily corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts" (II.x.viii). He also claims that the Hebrew original (and more importantly, the "present Hebrew original," or the "Masoretic text") is the source from which all versions are to be judged, and that it is a monstrous notion to make emendations to the text based upon some supposed other Hebrew text which stood under a version such as the LXX; and, in answer to your original post, claims that the Protestants have always denied that "[the versions] can ever be made equal to, much less be preferred to the original text" (II.xii.iv). The only legitimate variants are those that are within the Masoretic text, according to Turretin, though the versions (e.g., LXX) may indeed be of use in deciding which of the Masoretic readings is to be preferred. No other text, he claims, can be the touchstone, or else we fall into the error of the Socinians and make "the establishment of the authoritative reading [to] be the work of the human will and reason, not of the Holy Spirit" (II.xii.x).

Turretin's (and the other Protestants to whom he refers) "errors" were not "errors" in the sense you are intending, but occasional copyist errors that could readily be corrected by other copies of the Hebrew text (and it is worthwhile to note *which* Hebrew text Turretin intends -- I'm not asking you to agree with him, but it is important to understand what his position was, and what he understood to be the unanimous opinion of the Protestant churches). It is also worthwhile to note that Turretin affirms the doctrine of even the inspiration of the vowel points which is contained in the Helvetic Consensus Formula.

Finally, to give an indication of Turretin's doctrine of preservation (I know not if it is the same/similar to KJV-only positions, simply because I don't read them), consider his words in II.xii.xvi:

"Although we are bound to the present codex [Masoretic text], it is not necessary for it to represent to us the autograph of Moses and the prophets without even the smallest difference. For in order to preserve a copy exactly conformed to the original, it is sufficient for the same words to occur in each, without which the sense could not exist; and with the words the letters also, without which the words could not exist or be written (although some discrepancies might occur in other minutiae)."

So, yes, Turretin does not believe in "perfect perservation;" but he does believe that 1.) The words, and 2.) the letters do conform exactly to the original autographs: it is "other minutiae" which can differ. Again, I am not asking you to agree with Turretin, but it is necessary for the sake of accuracy to not state that Turretin and the other Protestants believed there were errors in the text in the same sense which is generally intended today, or that they believed that any versions (such as the LXX) could ever have readings equal to or preferable to the present Hebrew original apographs.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 28, 2009)

Steve,
Would you please address Philo? I am not asking about the myth of the making of the translation, but as to whether one existed. You seem to be avoiding my question.


----------



## TimV (Nov 28, 2009)

> So, yes, Turretin does not believe in "perfect perservation;"



To remove any ambiguity, are there any people still reading this thread who believe that Turretin or any other of the Reformers would have agreed with Jones or any other of the KJVO writers when they say things like 



> This cannot be over emphasized, for unless we come by faith to a
> commitment that God has kept His promises and providentially
> preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus itself and not merely in the
> Greek majority readings, the final form of the text will forever be
> unsettled in our hearts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2009)

Josh, 

Sorry I didn’t answer what you asked – far be it from me to avoid an issue in this discussion. You said,

"Would you please address your objections to the quote from Philo as evidence of a greek translation in use at the time of Christ."​
My primary objection would be this: Philo, per the work of his you cited, section V. (25) ff., appears to be talking only of the Pentateuch, for he repeatedly uses the phrases, “the legislation of Moses” and “these laws” – *not* an entire OT or any other part of it, which is what this discussion here involves. Nor does he, in any of his works, quote any actual portion of the OT in Greek. It is generally accepted there was a translation in Greek of the Pentateuch before and in the time of Christ, but we do not know what it looked like – what its text was – as nothing of it is extant.


Tim,

This is what the standardized Hebrew text would look like: The Second Great Rabbinic Bible: Ben Chayyim Massoretic text.

I think it has been established that the Reformers varied slightly on their views of preservation. We have discussed John Owen before. They are quite in alignment with E.F Hills, Harvard text critic who penned the classic, _The King James Version Defended_.

This is how the Formula Consensus Helvetica reads concerning the Scripture:

I. God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, which is the “power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth “(Rom. 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a “sure word of prophecy“ and “Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15), from which, though heaven and earth perish, “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass” (Matt. 5:18).

II. But, in particular, the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church, unto whom formerly “were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels—either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points—not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the Original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of our faith and life; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, oriental and occidental, ought to be applied, and where ever they differ, be conformed.

III. Therefore we can by no means approve the opinion of those who declare that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not scruple at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the Greek Versions of the LXX and others, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Chaldee Targums, or even from other sources, yea, sometimes from their own reason alone; and furthermore, they do not acknowledge any other reading to be genuine except that which can be educed by the critical power of the human judgment from the collation of editions with each other and with the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself—which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the Versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew context other Hebrew Originals, since these Versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other. Thus they bring the foundation of our faith and its inviolable authority into perilous hazard.​
Does that come close to what the King James priority view looks like?

But back to the topic of the thread: It cannot be established that Jesus or the NT authors quoted from the Greek OT where it differed from the Hebrew, preferring the Greek over the Hebrew.


----------



## TimV (Nov 29, 2009)

> Does that come close to what the King James priority view looks like?



I looked through the link, and it doesn't seem to say much about the New Testament, so no, I'd like to get some examples of where Reformers disagreed with Turretin, and an approximate percentage of those who did. I also note that Turretin was involved in drafting the document, so for now, I would definitely count the Formula Consensus Helvetica as being similar to KJVO thinking about the OT, though, but not the _textus receptus_. And I thank you for the link.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2009)

This is a statement Tim has posted (by Dr. Floyd Jones),

This cannot be over emphasized, for unless we come by faith to a commitment that God has kept His promises and providentially preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus itself and not merely in the Greek majority readings, the final form of the text will forever be unsettled in our hearts.​
I have endeavored to show above that the Reformation Confession, the _Formula Consensus Helvetica_ is very similar, and Turretin was one of the co-writers of it.

Turretin didn’t go as much into defending the NT Greek Scriptures as the onslaught in his day was primarily against the Hebrew. From his _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_: 

2. Q. XI.X (p.115) “There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: 'they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles' (_Bibliotheca sancta_ [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ.”​
What of the Christian life is not to be entered into by faith? We are saved by faith, we are sanctified by faith, we *live* by faith, fellowshipping with our Lord by such – why then is it thought so preposterous we apply this same divine _method_ to the Holy Bible? We read and appropriate its promises by faith, why should we not look at the Book itself through the eyes of faith? It is the very Word of our God, spoken by Him who is not of this world, by His Spirit delivered to and through His chosen prophets, writers, and apostles, and inscripturated for His glory and our everlasting good. Devils and their human instruments ever sought to destroy and corrupt this holy Word, and should we not reckon as a matter of our faith the activity of God who gave it to protect it against all these attacks? Did not He who gave it protect and preserve it it would have perished faster than natural books and words, for the enmity of all Hell was set against it, seeing as by it men were saved to glorify and enjoy the Almighty God.

So when I say I hold this particular Book – this what is known as the Authorized Version or the King James Bible – to be that cultivated fruit of His singular care and providence brought forth at that time the English language was to spread the everlasting Gospel widely across the earth, and become the language to this age what Greek was to the early Roman Empire, why is my faith – which is coin of the realm in all other areas of God’s kingdom – spurned and scorned? Do I err when I say that the church is degenerating rapidly, and like the canary with the coal miners keeling over as the invisible gas comes in, faith in His fulfilled promises in this matter will diminish as the ill wind blows in, and many professors will keel over, the gas of doubt taking its toll. I love my brethren, yet I have exited the foul cave of the modern text-critical labyrinth for cleaner air. And I speak as I do for their sake, in this post-text-critical age.

I will also let Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, whose views closely approximate John Owen’s regarding preservation, have a say, as this King James Only man’s words are pertinent:

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (_The King James Version Defended_, p. 1)​

Regarding the OT preservation, this is from Jack Moorman’s, _Forever Settled:  A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_, Part 1, Section 1:

1. Christ AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

During His earthly life, the Lord Jesus Christ appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matthew 22:42-45; John 10:34-36), thus indicating His confidence that this text had been accurately transmitted. Not only so but he also expressed this conviction in the strongest possible manner:

Matthew 5:18 _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._

Luke 16:17 _And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail._

Here our Lord assures us that the Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other inspired authors. Nothing had been lost from the text. It would have been easier for heaven and earth to pass than for such a loss to have taken place.

Moreover, our Saviour's statements are also promises that the providential preservation of the Old Testament text shall never cease or fail. That same Old Testament text which was preserved in its purity during the Old Testament dispensation shall continue to be faithfully preserved during the New Testament dispensation until this present age is brought to an end and all the events foretold by Daniel (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15) and the other ancient prophets come to pass. So our Lord has promised, and today the Holy Spirit gives to all true believers the assurance that their Saviour has kept and will keep his promise.

Christ's promises of the preservation of the text are in addition to those already given by inspiration in the OT:

Psalms 12:6,7 _The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever._

Psalms 119:89 _For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven._

Isaiah 40:8 _The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever._

The OT text has been preserved. Christ has kept His promise. The following will help us to better understand some of the details of this preservation.​
As this thread keeps leaving the stated purpose of it (apparently at a dead end), and regularly going off topic (and I going with it!), I may bow out now as it seems to be continuing, for I have other labors I do not want to slight in favor of _this_. I am all up to the fight for the integrity of God’s holy Word, but I am not into beating dead horses.

Those new to this board – or this general topic of discussion – I would steer here and here for further information and study.

Tim, I appreciate your irenic attitude in this discussion.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2009)

A brief note on the dynamic in this, and related, threads: I find myself on the defensive, that is, defending the Bible I and many others use, as well as the faith-based presuppositions undergirding my view. And this attack is relentless, of an apparently obsessive-compulsive nature, and intended to destroy the faith of those it targets. Of course this is just one side of the coin, for there are KJV / TR advocates who do the same thing to those who use any other versions than theirs. And such activities beget equal and opposite reactions. And so we get the internecine warfare that turns off so many unbelievers, and embitters even believers.

I am sorry to say I did at one point in my life conduct myself similarly, but having been somewhat civilized during my sojourn here at PB, have learned a better way. I talk about that here in my discussion responding to James White on these issues of the Biblical text.

The arguments of both sides are pretty stock and not much new is being developed; we all have the same textual and historical data, but interpret it according to our respective presuppositions. What is new is the external threat coming after the people of God in the form of an apostate text critic and the brood he is mentoring, which new front is not yet well developed and established, but is getting there. That we fight each other is a strategy not of our conceiving, but from the pit, to divert us from the real battle, and from real danger.

I came to see that tearing down the faith of my brothers and sisters in their Bibles was an evil thing, for if I leave them without confidence in the Word of God they have (a given being that many are sufficiently poisoned in their minds to the KJV, for various reasons), and thus bereft of that one foundation and lifeline for being in God’s presence, well, then I make myself an enemy to their faith, and, really, their Lord. And this ought not be. I now discuss textual issues with respect to readings / variants, and do not go after their Bibles as being illegitimate, which they are not. Some in the KJV camp may not like my attitude here, but I am looking ahead at the days which are coming, where we shall need to stand – and fall, if God so ordains – in unity and brotherly love. Maybe some have the (delusional) luxury to think such days shall not come upon us, that things will get brighter and brighter in our environment and culture, and so what is a little warfare among brothers and sisters we think stupid and contemptible?

We have been given a command – a direct order – from our Commander-in-Chief to love one another as He has loved us. Disobedience to this command, while we easily justify ourselves, is nonetheless dangerous and will not serve us well when we have need of help from those we have been attacking. When I see the mean streak that often accompanies textual discussions (and other discussions as well) I note that person as a potential disrupter-of-the-peace of the community of grace, and a caster of doubt on his or her own profession.

A lack of graciousness betrays a lack of the Spirit of Christ.

Obviously I say these things not from any want of ability to engage in vigorous debate in this realm. I say them because I see our Lord grieved at the outcome all too frequent in such activity (James 3:13-18). And when we grieve Him, our fellowship with Him is diminished (not our union – not of the elect), and this is most dangerous, given we live amidst the allurements of Babylon the harlot, and are vulnerable on many fronts.

The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. 

Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good. (Eccl. 9:17,18)​
May these latter not be me!


----------

