# Septuagint usage in Hebrews and Apostles?



## Stope (Nov 23, 2016)

I surveyed a few very convoluted PB threads about the Septuagint and my mind was spinning...

It appears that Jesus, and those around Him, read the Septuagint - and we see that Hebrews 1 is direct quote of Septuagint (well, at least James White says), so how does it not follow that we should use this version as well?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 23, 2016)

It is not quite that simple. Paul normally quotes from the LXX, as does the author of Hebrews, however the gospels often quote from the LXX and the Hebrew. It only makes sense that the NT writers would tend to use a Greek translation since that was the dominant language of the time. This should not be necessarily be seen as a tacit endorsement of the LXX since it seems that the NT writers would sometimes alter it as well, perhaps in a bid to correct it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2016)

We can say that the NT use of Greek renditions of the Hebrew is proof that a faithful translation of the Word of God is still the Word of God.

Matthew's (for example) putting Jesus' quotation of the OT into a Greek form is no proof that Jesus was literally reading the LXX. For one thing, the notion of a quality "standard" LXX before the advent of a printing press is absurd. There couldn't possibly be any such thing; and so far as we know there wasn't anything like the Jewish concern for the precise preservation of the Hebrew text extended to any Greek translations. For all we know, a number of NT apostolic renderings of OT passages made it "back into" LXX variants.

Jesus most likely read the standard Hebrew text in the Judean and Galilean synagogues; though it is not beyond all possibility that he might have encountered a Greek translation during any time he spent trans-Jordan.

We only know how reliable any Greek translation is, or how the apostles may have treated some OT passage, because there's a Hebrew original to which we have access.


----------



## Stope (Nov 23, 2016)

Brothers - both very helpful!!!

In a related note, is the following correct:

LANGUAGE USAGE IN Jesus' DAY:
-At Home = Aramaic
-Workplace = Aramaic and/or Greek
-Government spoken = Greek and/or Aramaic
Government written = Greek and/or Aramaic
-OT = LXX and Hebrew
-All NT books = Greek

Is that right? Am I missing any?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2016)

There are two shorter sections of the OT that are in Aramaic, Dan.2:4b-7:28 and Ezra 4:8-6:18 & 7:12-26 (plus 2Ki.18:26 & Is.36:11; and Jer.10:11).

There are many languages, of course, spoken in the Bible, note Act.2:4-12 evidence.

Greek was the _lingua franca_ of that part of the world, thanks mainly to Alexander the Great. Aramaic was the commercial language of the region encompassing Judea; due partly to the reign of the Selucids over that territory for several centuries after Alexander; and before that, the time of the Exile when so many Jews were relocated from their land to the northeast, to beyond the Euphrates River (see Ezk.1:1, ref. a tributary or a place: Chebar).

The language of Roman rule was Latin, e.g. Jn.19:20, "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." We may surmise the letter sent, Act.23:25ff, was composed in Latin; and there are doubtless other places which prove spoken or written Latin. But none is quoted in that tongue.

Jesus plainly speaks Mk.5:41 and 15:34 in Aramaic, the words being transliterated first into Gk, then an interpretation given. The latter is a case of a quote from Ps.22:1. Hebrew is a cognate language to Aramaic, but to our knowledge it was in Jesus' 1C day mainly a religious and literary language. So, how does his quote relate to his Bible (OT)? Did he know the Psalms in his "mother tongue?"


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 24, 2016)

The LXX was the text that the Apostles knew of and used, but it was not the inspired one,as that was resered for the original Hebrew books, and we usethe Masoric text now as the closest to those originals.

And the Holy spirit aloowed the Apsotle to "see" Jesus in OT passages, such as calling son out of Egypt, that was meant at time for Israel.

Their use of theLXX does not make it the authoriative text for us, basically, was used by Holy Spirit at times as one they knew and used!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2016)

Jesus is Israel-of-one: Israel reduced to a single, faithful, righteous, obedient Man.

He alone is the inheritor of all the promises. Everyone else been disinherited, cast out, permanently exiled.

The only way back into "the Israel of God" is by union with the Christ, the Mediator, the Vine. No one gets in any other way, whether Jew or Gentile.

This is why Matthew can say: that Israel-of-old, and of-many, in coming out of Egypt _foresignified_ Jesus; 
or that Jesus _recapitulated_ the history of Israel-the-nation by going down to Egypt and coming back out of there. That was the plan.

We need to get used (again) to looking at everything that happened then (1Cor.10:11) as in various senses _anticipatory_ of One Man, even Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 24, 2016)

I agree with you, but am suggesting that the Spirit give them insight into the OT that we would not normally make the cobnnection...

He gave them "apostolic understanding" that we would not have on our own seen in many of those OT passages they connected Jesus with!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2016)

Did the Spirit give them only some particular insights? Altogether unexpected and unprecedented and nonrepeatable recasting of Scripture's (OT) matter? Are we shut up exclusively to the limited number of them now found in the NT?

Or did Jesus teach them three-and-a-half years *how to* interpret the Scriptures consistently with reference to him? And also inspire them by the Spirit to record some of those insightful connections in the NT Scripture?

in other words: do the instances we have in the NT stand as the apostle's *how to* for the church, by which they have passed on the art of true, Christ-centered interpretation?

Would Christians "not normally" make such connections because it requires inspiration to qualify as accurate; or because they never think to do so, having adopted a non-apostolic hermeneutic?

Just something for you to think about...

Blessings.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2016)

I think that they applied for us in their books what Jesus taught concerningHimself as being found in all of the OT, and that they also were given from the Holy Spirit the authority to take those passages and point out forour benefit that Jesuswas to b seen in theultimate/final application of those prophecies...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 25, 2016)

Jason, have you seen this thread? (The main opponent to my view, TimV, is no longer among the living.) In a nutshell, yes, I believe the NT authors quoted the LXX when it was faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic, but did not when it was not.

LXX Discussion thread (Many issues concerning the Septuagint.)

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


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

They also at times quotes more of a "paraphrase" type style?


----------

