# When the OT is quoted in the NT, is it from the Septuagint?



## NoxNoctum (May 11, 2012)

And if not from the Septuagint, then where from? (especially in the epistles written to Greek speaking believers)

Also, how do you reconcile verses like...:

Matthew 24:35 _Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. _ 

Psalm 12:6-7 _ The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever._ 

...with textual differences? I understand that the differences are mostly minor and do not alter any key doctrines but it still bothers me with regard to the those two verses especially.

Any help on this issue would be great thanks.


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 12, 2012)

58 views and no replies? Cmon guys 

It's important to me to know this because I would see it as basically an endorsement of translation (i.e. if God allowed his word to be translated and still be called "the truth" then it's fine for us to do) and also it would put to rest my concerns about textual differences. Because again, if the holy spirit himself chose to use a translation that differed from the masoretic in minor issues when quoting the OT and still call it "the truth" then I can relax about the whole critical text vs TR and be confident that with both versions I can know be reading the truth even if they differ from each other and from the originals in small things. Basically, if it's good enough for God it's good enough for me. 

Not that I need to be ignorant about the TR vs critical text differences, but frankly, when I'm meditating on the word of God, I want to be spending my time thinking about how I have been "rescued out of the authority of the darkness and translated into the reign of the son of his love" and the ramifications of THAT, not reading the fine points of a scholarly debate.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 12, 2012)

What bothers you? I'm not getting it.


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 12, 2012)

The textual differences bother me. Because it kinda screws with my ability to just read a verse and think "your word is truth" (John 17:17). Even if the differences are minor.

But if the Septuagint, (which I assume differed from the Masoretic in similar ways that the TR differs from the critical) was used when quoting the OT by Paul and the other writers of the NT, then it doesn't need to bother me, because I would see it as basically the bible itself saying that regardless of textual differences it is still the truth. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Phil D. (May 12, 2012)

Yes, many of the NTs quotations from the OT are from the Septuagint - somewhere in the order of 200 out of the 300 or so total, If I recall correctly.


----------



## jogri17 (May 12, 2012)

Usually, and sometimes they are paraphrases or literally illusions. We must remember what inspiration is and isn't and not give into a fundamentalist understand of the Scriptures... this is to say a wooden literal interpretation.


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 12, 2012)

Phil D. said:


> Yes, many of the NTs quotations from the OT are from the Septuagint - somewhere in the order of 200 out of the 300 or so total, If I recall correctly.



Where are the others from? Were they translations that the writers of the NT (Paul, Luke etc) did themselves?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 12, 2012)

There wasn't (and couldn't be, without printing presses and a school of control) a single "version" called Septuagint. The "authoritative" Scriptures were the Hebrew originals, and within that tradition there was great concern for "letter-correct" editions.

That level of precision is impossible in a translation. There may have been an "original" Septuagint, and that may have been copied and spread about. But even then, it isn't likely that there was any attempt to fix the form of the text worldwide. The quality of translation varies from section to section. It's something of a mixture of word-for-word in the Law of Moses, to dynamic equivalence in the Psalms. Post-Christian era saw one or more new Gk. translations from Jewish sources.

All we can say for certain is that many NT quotes line up very well with common LXX renderings of OT passages, and so presumably the NT uses quotes from common Gk-speaker's OT translations. There is also the (more remote) possibility in some cases of back-formation, that is NT precise renderings replaced a previous Gk.-OT translation in the text, as apostolic authority superseded an earlier translator's ideas of rendering the Hebrew.

As for other, again, they may reflect one of several lines of reasoning. 1) Another Gk. rendering, already extant. 2) An apostolic translation from Hebrew. 3) A Holy-Spirit inspired re-wording of old text to reflect New Covenant realities--transforming a "quote" from a text that looks forward, to an allusion of the same passage that shows fulfillment. None of these possibilities excludes the others, and some may overlap. There may be other ideas, equally valid.


We don't need a single authoritative translation of the Bible. Even when the text-base differs, differences in meaning between reputable translations amounts to not even a hill of beans. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said (something like), "It's not the hard parts of the Bible I have trouble with; I'm troubled by the parts I understand with no trouble."

This is the issue. It isn't the fuzzy, static-blurred portions (depending on the receiver) that prevent people from accepting the Word of God as it comes to them. It is the encounter itself, and the inherent authority of the Author that confronts them. Anyone who rejects God's revelation because they could not be made 100% certain about a singular or a plural (for instance) is quibbling because he thinks God owes him something more persuasive than a perfectly understandable sentence or paragraph--when he really just doesn't like submitting to the claims of authority he understands well enough.


----------



## Peairtach (May 12, 2012)

*Joseph*


> illusions


allusions


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 12, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There wasn't (and couldn't be, without printing presses and a school of control) a single "version" called Septuagint. The "authoritative" Scriptures were the Hebrew originals, and within that tradition there was great concern for "letter-correct" editions.
> 
> That level of precision is impossible in a translation. There may have been an "original" Septuagint, and that may have been copied and spread about. But even then, it isn't likely that there was any attempt to fix the form of the text worldwide. The quality of translation varies from section to section. It's something of a mixture of word-for-word in the Law of Moses, to dynamic equivalence in the Psalms. Post-Christian era saw one or more new Gk. translations from Jewish sources.
> 
> ...



Thanks that was a good explanation.

How does the fact that there are textual variants line up with Matthew 24:35 though?

BTW I'm not trying to be argumentative or question the authority of God's word if that's what you're sensing. But for my own peace of mind I want to understand this and also be able to address it when others ask me about it.

It's also an issue like I said when I want to be able to affirm in my mind "your word is truth" and I'm staring at two slightly different versions of it. Without going into detail, there's been many times in my life where just being able to breathe practically depended on me being able to call to mind a verse and without any doubt rely on it even when everything I saw and felt around and me was telling me the opposite. That process (of being able to completely ignore everything else and focus on various verses of truth) has been a bit screwed up by my discomfort over textual variants. Though lately I've been reminding myself that "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth", and that the Spirit is equally capable of doing so regardless of whether I decide to use a translation that relies on one set of manuscripts or a translation that relies on another set, because my understanding of the truth doesn't depend on my personal abilities to read some words on a page. I guess this is the thing I need to be focusing on.


----------



## jogri17 (May 12, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Joseph
> illusions
> allusions



Typo. Don't worry, I'm not a liberal.  That's the problem in typing fast and not proof reading I suppose.


----------



## Beau Michel (May 12, 2012)

Yes from the Septuagint.The Septuagint was the Bible of the early Greek speaking Christians.Beau Michel-Reformed Baptist


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 12, 2012)

Hello NoxNoctum,

Welcome to PB. I'm giving you some links (below) that discuss the LXX / NT questions you pose. And underneath those, a link to a compilation of a number of text-critical studies — from the King James priority (not KJ only) viewpoint — to the end of affirming the Lord has preserved His word as it is written in Matt 24:35. That may not be your cup of tea, but that's how I defend it.

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

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-nt-authors-quote-lxx-55489/


The studies: http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jerusalem-blade/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-268/

Hope this is helpful.

P.S. I see that the Will Kinney article links I referenced in the posts I made are defunct, so here is his new article page: http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 13, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello NoxNoctum,
> 
> Welcome to PB. I'm giving you some links (below) that discuss the LXX / NT questions you pose. And underneath those, a link to a compilation of a number of text-critical studies — from the King James priority (not KJ only) viewpoint — to the end of affirming the Lord has preserved His word as it is written in Matt 24:35. That may not be your cup of tea, but that's how I defend it.
> 
> ...



I read some of the stuff on that page you linked (Will Kinney), but the biggest problem I have with KJV-onlyism (I know you're not saying that you hold that position but the guy on that page apparently does), is that where does that leave non-English speakers who often have translations only from the critical text? Do they not have the word of God then until someone decides to translate from the KJV (since from what I've heard the KJV differs from the TR in many areas)? That just seems crazy to me.


----------



## Eoghan (May 14, 2012)

*Septuagint used to correct Hebrew?*

This is an issue which has exercised me. As I understand it the Septuagint was not "completed" until some time after the NT era. So as a single book no it is not quoted. I also think quote is the wrong term. We are used to a verbatim, word for word quotation. The NT writers seem to paraphrase to bring out the meaning more clearly. Thus I would use the NT use of the OT to guide my interpretation but not expect a word for word correlation.

Hope this helps

Oh, the other thing I came across was that some translators take my last point, apply it to the whole of the Septuagint and write it back into the Hebrew original. Using the Greek translation to correct the Hebrew original. [Others could perhaps give examples of this?]


----------



## A5pointer (May 14, 2012)

I don't know if it is fully relevant what their sources were as what you are observing is authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit using a literary device known as Rabinical midrash. Hence what apears at times paraphrase, at other times mixing un connected texts, at times texts changed or stated to mean something foriegn from their meaning in the old etc. I am sure there are many here who could contribute more fully to this topic of midrash.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 14, 2012)

Hello NoxNoctum, you say with regard to a certain brand of the KJO holders,

"where does that leave non-English speakers who often have translations only from the critical text? Do they not have the word of God then until someone decides to translate from the KJV (since from what I've heard the KJV differs from the TR in many areas)? That just seems crazy to me."​
I'll quote from my http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/ thread:

It has been asked, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:

There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an _adequate_ preservation as distinguished from preservation in the _minutiae_.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?​
When you say, "I've heard the KJV differs from the TR in many areas", I think you may be referring to the Majority Text. For the TR (textus receptus) there are perhaps 2 or 3 very slightly differing editions. An extended discussion on those issues is here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/.

Yes, Will Kinney is a full KJO defender — and his defense is excellent, although he is rather harsh at times; I try to be more irenic, a trait I needed to learn among the civilized folks here at PB.


----------



## Mushroom (May 14, 2012)

A verse worthy of constant remembrance...
Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (ESV)


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 15, 2012)

NoxNoctum said:


> I read some of the stuff on that page you linked (Will Kinney), but the biggest problem I have with KJV-onlyism (I know you're not saying that you hold that position but the guy on that page apparently does), is that where does that leave non-English speakers who often have translations only from the critical text? Do they not have the word of God then until someone decides to translate from the KJV (since from what I've heard the KJV differs from the TR in many areas)? That just seems crazy to me.



Most defenders of the TR or the KJV, (even the most ardent defenders of this position) will not deny that other translations (even those translated from the CT) can be used for the glory of God. Where most of us differ is that when you do have the choice between the two, a faithful translation based on the TR is always to be prefered. 

There are translations in other languages that are based on the TR even today. I personnaly do not accept that God has to bless every single christian (or church) with the same amount of blessing (including purity of scriptures). God has shown more favor to some more than others all through history, (let us remember that the amount of blessing does not necessarily mean he love them more than others). Scriptures tell us that to them that are given much, much will be required. We need to be good steward of the blessing God give us.

Would you use the same logic that since some christians are very wealthy they cannot be true christians since other christians do not have the same wealth? This idea that God has to give to all the exact same amount of blessing is a flawed argument.


----------

