Do NT authors quote the LXX?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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”?
 
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).
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top