I am no expert on this, but this raises some questions I have wondered about.
Why would Jesus, who presumably spoke in Aramaic and probably also Hebrew (which are extremely similiar), quote to Aramaic speakers from a Greek translation? I find this curious at best. It is true that the quotations we have in the New Testament appear to be quoted from the LXX. I am not entirely convinced that this means that the original speakers, including Jesus, also quoted, in Greek, from the LXX. It does not seem likely that the crowds in Nazareth would all be Greek speakers.
Yes, I know the alternative also presents a question. If we theorize that the gospel writers were writing in Greek, and therefore quoted from a Greek (LXX) OT when writing their gospels, it would be taking away from the inspired accuracy of their accounts of the words of Jesus. However, when we look at incidents recorded in multiple gospels, they are rarely in exact word for word agreement on the precise words that Jesus spoke. It appears that they were more interested in conveying the meaning of what he was saying than attempting to recite it word for word, especially since what they were writing was in a different language than Jesus most likely spoke anyway. You can't write down in Greek a word for word account of what someone spoke in Aramaic.
When Jesus went into the Synagoge and read from Isaiah, I suppose it is possible that the synagogue did have a Greek scroll for him to read from, but I would find that doubtful. I think that an Aramaic speaker would be able to understand Hebrew quite well, especially if they were raised in the synagogue and learned to read and write from the Hebrew scriptures. It appears to me that while Aramaic was the language of everyday conversation, Hebrew was the language of the Jewish religion, much as today many of us still prefer to use King James English to read from, and even consider it more respectful or "holy" in some way. But we don't, like Quakers, attempt to use it in daily discourse. But going to Greek, now that would be something else entirely. If Jesus himself, a man of the poor and champion of the downtrodden, read from a Greek translation, I think he would almost surely have missed a large part of his Jewish audience.
My theory, happily unsupported by real facts, is that Jesus quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, in Hebrew, to an Aramaic speaking audience. The gospel writers, recording those events for a Greek speaking Roman world, wrote in Greek, and used Scriptural quotes from a Greek LXX that the Greek speaking world would be familiar with.
0
The OT, the NT and the LXX
Started by Guest_Alethia_*, Feb 04 2003 08:58 PM
20 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Admin
-
- 119 posts
Iota
Posted 05 February 2003 - 04:44 AM
As I understand it, Greek was the lingua franca of Jesus' day. Aramaic was also in use, while Hebrew (which was rapidly becoming an unknown language, even among the Jews) was hardly used at all.
It is clear from the NT record that the apostles used the LXX (Matthew's citation of the virgin birth prophecy, for example.) It is equally clear that Jesus sometimes quoted from the same source.
Why would they use it? Because it was the common version of the day, just as the KJV became the common version of the English-speaking nations for centuries.
The synagogues doubtless used Aramaic versions, but the LXX was definitely the default version for most people.
It is clear from the NT record that the apostles used the LXX (Matthew's citation of the virgin birth prophecy, for example.) It is equally clear that Jesus sometimes quoted from the same source.
Why would they use it? Because it was the common version of the day, just as the KJV became the common version of the English-speaking nations for centuries.
The synagogues doubtless used Aramaic versions, but the LXX was definitely the default version for most people.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
#3 Guest_Alethia_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:27 AM
While Greek was the lingua franca in the Roman world as a whole, that does not mean it was common throughout the villages of Israel. It would be like today, where English is the world language, which you can find spoken to a degree in the big cities anywhere, and among well educated people, but if you go to the villages or small towns in any country, you'd better be prepared to deal in the native tongue.
Aramaic had been the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Persian world, and the returning exiles spoke it. According to the Westminster Bible dictionary, Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jews, and Hebrew was the language of the synagogues and religion. I am really highly doubtful that Jesus would have spoken to the people in Greek, though he may well have been trained in it. I am also doubtful that anyone would read in Greek in the synagogue. I have the feeling it would have been a major faux pax, like when Paul caused a riot merely by bringing Greek speaking Jewish visitors into the temple. I don't think the Jews would have tolerated Greek in the worship, nor would the schools of the Pharisees use it for religious purposes.
Aramaic had been the lingua franca of the Babylonian and Persian world, and the returning exiles spoke it. According to the Westminster Bible dictionary, Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jews, and Hebrew was the language of the synagogues and religion. I am really highly doubtful that Jesus would have spoken to the people in Greek, though he may well have been trained in it. I am also doubtful that anyone would read in Greek in the synagogue. I have the feeling it would have been a major faux pax, like when Paul caused a riot merely by bringing Greek speaking Jewish visitors into the temple. I don't think the Jews would have tolerated Greek in the worship, nor would the schools of the Pharisees use it for religious purposes.
#4
-
- Admin
-
- 119 posts
Iota
Posted 07 February 2003 - 06:14 PM
I apologise for having given you the wrong impression. I was not saying that Jesus spoke Greek to the people as a matter of course. I meant that he obviously quoted the LXX (on occasion) when citing the OT and that in doing so, he would have delivered his words to the people in Aramaic.
But with Pilate, he would have spoken Greek. B)
But with Pilate, he would have spoken Greek. B)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
#5
-
- Admin
-
- 119 posts
Iota
Posted 08 February 2003 - 07:26 AM
There's an interesting table of comparisons here. (Takes a long time to load unless you have broadband, which I don't!) As far as I'm aware, this table contains every single occurrance of an OT citation in the NT.
An example:
As far as I'm aware, this table contains every single occurrance of an OT citation in the NT.An example:
- New Testament:
Matthew 2:15
Out of Egypt have I called my son.
- LXX:
Hosea 11:1
and out of Egypt have I called his children.
- Masoretic:
Hosea 11:1
and called my son out of Egypt.
- Jerome mentioned with embarrassment certain passages in the Septuagint which he believed to be incorrectly translated from the Hebrew. But before we can convict the Septuagint of translation error, we have to produce, at a minimum, the Hebrew text upon which the Septuagint is based. Since that text no longer exists, accusations of mistranslation remain unproven conjectures.
And even if the Septuagint is thick with mistranslation, its errors are frequently sanctioned by the New Testament. For instance, if the word “virgin (parthenos in Greek)” in Isaiah 7.14 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah, Matthew has given his assent to this error. In fact, those of us who believe the New Testament to be inspired by God are required to believe that many “errors” of the Septuagint are inspired also, because they are incorporated into the New Testament directly.
If the errors that are quoted have Divine sanction, on what basis can we reject the errors that are not quoted? Or, consider what we imply if we say that the Masoretic text alone can lay claim to being the genuine Old Testament. The clear implication is that the authors of the New Testament were benighted and, ignorant of the truth, used an inferior text. The theological implications they drew when they quoted from “mistranslations” in the Septuagint should be rejected.
Thus, the logical corollaries to the proposition that the Masoretic text alone is worthy to be considered the Old Testament include: Christ was not born of a virgin, the angels do not worship the Son, Christ did not come to restore sight to the blind, the behavior of the Jews was not cause for God’s name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, etc. In short, we are forced to conclude that the New Testament is not inspired.
I have yet to discover any sufficient reason to consider the Masoretic text as preferable to the Septuagint. However, the case in favor of the Septuagint is subject to criticism. Even assuming that the New Testament warrant is sufficient grounds for using a text, one could argue that the New Testament witness is muddled. Although we do find the apostles and their followers using the Septuagint as we know it with great frequency, they also stray toward other sources - sometimes to a text very similar to the Masoretic, sometimes to a text we do not currently possess.
Though our failure to recognize the basis for the quotation may often be due to paraphrase, there are cases that are very difficult to explain in this way. Jerome mentioned two of them in a passage quoted in the section on the fathers: “For he shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2. 23) is one example. Another is, “Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly” (John 7.38).
It is possible that every quotation in the New Testament is from a Septuagint, but from one, though popular in the first century, we no longer possess in its entirety. It is reasonable to conclude from the writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr that their scriptures were slightly different from our own.
- It seems clear to me that the case in favor of the Septuagint is the stronger of the two. But the same primary argument in favor of translation from the Septuagint - New Testament precedent - implies that the Christian should be aware of Masoretic readings. In like manner, our desire to understand the theology of the early Church in the light of Her scriptures entails the need to retain familiarity with those scriptures - such as the ones quoted by Justin Martyr above - which appear to have dropped out of the Old Testament over the years.
In my view, then, the ideal Old Testament will be based on the Septuagint as the primary source, and will include extensive footnotes including significant variant readings from all other sources, including the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Fathers of the Church.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
#6
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 34,244 posts
Omega
Posted 08 February 2003 - 12:35 PM
The gospel records make it abundantly apparent that the common language spoken by Christ and those he taught was Aramaic, and that the gospels were therefore a translation into Greek of what had first been spoken in Aramaic.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
#7
-
- Admin
-
- 119 posts
Iota
Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:29 PM
Agreed.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
#8
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 165 posts
Kappa
Posted 08 February 2003 - 04:46 PM
While most of the quotations in the NT appear to come from the LXX, some are not (“Out of Egypt I have called my son”) – there is also a confusing one in Luke. When Jesus visited the synagogue at Nazareth (related in Luke 4), it says the “scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him” (v 17). It seems most likely that the scroll would be in Hebrew, not Greek or Aramaic. The words then quoted by Luke show an interesting mixture of LXX and Masoretic (in fact the scroll would be unpointed and pre-Masoretic). I have a great table in Word that shows this line by line, but I cant reproduce it – I will happily email a copy to anyone interested, but here is the text.
Luke 4:18,19 (AV)
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Isaiah 61:1,2 (Brentons LXX)
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me;
he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor,
to heal the broken in heart,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and recovery of sight to the blind;
to declare the acceptable year of the Lord,
Isaiah 61:1,2 (Masoretic ie AV)
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me
to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
There is a phrase that ONLY occurs in the LXX (recovery of sight to the blind), a phrase that ONLY occurs in the Hebrew (opening of prison to them that are bound – assuming this is equivalent to “let the oppressed go free”) and surprisingly Luke OMITS a phrase that is in both the LXX and the Hebrew (“heal the broken hearted”) – this phrase is also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have puzzled over this for some time and come up with no satisfactory explanation. One possibility is that we really don’t know what the original text of the Old Testament really is – it is somewhere between the LXX and the Masoretic. A strong argument against the LXX is that some parts are significantly different to the Masoretic – eg the LXX of Jeremiah is considerably shorter than Masoretic. Another alternative is that Luke is not quoting directly the words that Jesus said, but a paraphrase of them. But again, what is his source?
The use of the Hebrew text by Matthew (2:15) to quote Hosea 11:1 is understandable as the LXX says “Out of Egypt I have called my children” as pointed out above – this would destroy the argument that this was fulfilled in Jesus. However it is difficult to see how the Hosea passage can refer to Christ – it goes on to talk about the wickedness of his child/children. Other than in a sense that Israel was a type of Christ in going down into Egypt, the passage does not appear to be a prophecy. One is led to the possibility that we read too much into the phrase “this was to fulfil”, and should undestand it to mean correspondences rather than direct fulfilment of prophecy – an idea with which many Christadelphians may be uncomfortable.
Has anyone any ideas on either of the above conundrums?????
PS Not sure if Armoury is the right place for this discussion
Luke 4:18,19 (AV)
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Isaiah 61:1,2 (Brentons LXX)
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me;
he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor,
to heal the broken in heart,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and recovery of sight to the blind;
to declare the acceptable year of the Lord,
Isaiah 61:1,2 (Masoretic ie AV)
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me
to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
There is a phrase that ONLY occurs in the LXX (recovery of sight to the blind), a phrase that ONLY occurs in the Hebrew (opening of prison to them that are bound – assuming this is equivalent to “let the oppressed go free”) and surprisingly Luke OMITS a phrase that is in both the LXX and the Hebrew (“heal the broken hearted”) – this phrase is also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have puzzled over this for some time and come up with no satisfactory explanation. One possibility is that we really don’t know what the original text of the Old Testament really is – it is somewhere between the LXX and the Masoretic. A strong argument against the LXX is that some parts are significantly different to the Masoretic – eg the LXX of Jeremiah is considerably shorter than Masoretic. Another alternative is that Luke is not quoting directly the words that Jesus said, but a paraphrase of them. But again, what is his source?
The use of the Hebrew text by Matthew (2:15) to quote Hosea 11:1 is understandable as the LXX says “Out of Egypt I have called my children” as pointed out above – this would destroy the argument that this was fulfilled in Jesus. However it is difficult to see how the Hosea passage can refer to Christ – it goes on to talk about the wickedness of his child/children. Other than in a sense that Israel was a type of Christ in going down into Egypt, the passage does not appear to be a prophecy. One is led to the possibility that we read too much into the phrase “this was to fulfil”, and should undestand it to mean correspondences rather than direct fulfilment of prophecy – an idea with which many Christadelphians may be uncomfortable.
Has anyone any ideas on either of the above conundrums?????
PS Not sure if Armoury is the right place for this discussion
#9 Guest_Alethia_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 February 2003 - 09:11 PM
Administrator:
The link you provided to the table of comparisons of the NT, LXX and MT was very interesting. It is quite lengthy, and not subject to a simple generalization as a conclusion. I didn't go over every reference in great detail, but I would have to conclude from that table that it would simply not be correct to say that Jesus' words quoting the Old Testament were from the LXX. It didn't match up that way at all. Where there were significant differences between the LXX and the MT, the words of Jesus matched at least as well, if not better, with the MT in a great number of cases.
It would actually be better to see the table in Greek rather than with all three translated into English, as the Translation to English adds further opportunity for confusion, however it is certainly more accessible, if less conclusive, in English.
I think I would have to conclude from that table one of the following possibilities:
A) That Jesus may have quoted from a different version altogether, neither the LXX nor the MT.
B) That Jesus may have paraphrased or quoted a bit loosely at times, perhaps even clarifying the message, or modifying it through inspiration.
C) That the recorders of his words may have quoted them from a different translation than Jesus himself used, likely in a different language.
Another point is that relatively few of the quotes (though still a considerable number) are quotes by Jesus himself, but often commentary by the gospel writers. Also the quotes are often fragmentary, where Jesus quoted only a phrase rather than even a whole sentence, and re-interpreted the quote in light of the gospel revelation.
All together, I cannot say that it would support the idea that Jesus quoted from the LXX.
The link you provided to the table of comparisons of the NT, LXX and MT was very interesting. It is quite lengthy, and not subject to a simple generalization as a conclusion. I didn't go over every reference in great detail, but I would have to conclude from that table that it would simply not be correct to say that Jesus' words quoting the Old Testament were from the LXX. It didn't match up that way at all. Where there were significant differences between the LXX and the MT, the words of Jesus matched at least as well, if not better, with the MT in a great number of cases.
It would actually be better to see the table in Greek rather than with all three translated into English, as the Translation to English adds further opportunity for confusion, however it is certainly more accessible, if less conclusive, in English.
I think I would have to conclude from that table one of the following possibilities:
A) That Jesus may have quoted from a different version altogether, neither the LXX nor the MT.
B) That Jesus may have paraphrased or quoted a bit loosely at times, perhaps even clarifying the message, or modifying it through inspiration.
C) That the recorders of his words may have quoted them from a different translation than Jesus himself used, likely in a different language.
Another point is that relatively few of the quotes (though still a considerable number) are quotes by Jesus himself, but often commentary by the gospel writers. Also the quotes are often fragmentary, where Jesus quoted only a phrase rather than even a whole sentence, and re-interpreted the quote in light of the gospel revelation.
All together, I cannot say that it would support the idea that Jesus quoted from the LXX.
#10 Guest_Alethia_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 March 2003 - 06:14 AM
Hebrew as the language of Jesus
The February 2003 "Testimony" Magazine, in the Correspondence section printed a very persuasive letter showing considerable scriptural and historical evidence that Jesus and the Jews of his time most likely spoke primarily Hebrew rather than Aramaic. I found this convincing because it supported what already seemed to me to be highly likely.
As far as I can tell, the text of this is not available on the Internet, but if you can get a copy of the magazine I recommend it. I may try to scan and post it.
The February 2003 "Testimony" Magazine, in the Correspondence section printed a very persuasive letter showing considerable scriptural and historical evidence that Jesus and the Jews of his time most likely spoke primarily Hebrew rather than Aramaic. I found this convincing because it supported what already seemed to me to be highly likely.
As far as I can tell, the text of this is not available on the Internet, but if you can get a copy of the magazine I recommend it. I may try to scan and post it.
#11
-
- Members
-
- 89 posts
Eta
Posted 14 March 2003 - 06:46 AM
This is one thing I like about Christadelphians. The debates are always highly intellectual.
I plead my right to the fifth, and humbly plead "stupid" on the areas of Bibliology and Eschatology. Hopefully Seminary and college will change that.
I'll see what y'all have to say. TTYL Jesus loves you!
I plead my right to the fifth, and humbly plead "stupid" on the areas of Bibliology and Eschatology. Hopefully Seminary and college will change that.
I'll see what y'all have to say. TTYL Jesus loves you!
If true happiness were measured by a life of physical ease and freedom from all cares and worries, then the happiest individual would be Howard, my pet gerbil!
#12
-
- Guests
Posted 14 March 2003 - 11:57 AM
Quote
I plead my right to the fifth, and humbly plead "stupid" on the areas of Bibliology and Eschatology. Hopefully Seminary and college will change that.
Hey! No-one is *stupid* here mate! We are *all* learning ^_^
#13
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 22,344 posts
Omega
#14
-
- Members
-
- 22 posts
Beta
Posted 21 May 2004 - 05:06 AM
I just spotted this thread and thought I might add my two bits.
One possibility to consider when we see that many of the quotes in the Christian Scriptures match the LXX is that they may not actually be quoted from the Septuagint per se. What I mean by this is that the LXX was only translated about 200 years before Christ was born, so it is very likely that the Hebrew version underlying the LXX was still in everyday use. So it may not be that Jesus and the Apostles were actually quoting from the Greek translation, they may have been quoting from the Hebrew version that the LXX was translated from. I read recently theories that the text that became the MT was either in use in the temple and once Jerusalem fell in 70 it became the default due to its connections. The second theory is that it was the version used in Babylon and that when Jerusalem fell it was taken out by the Rabbi who later led the Jewish community from Jamnia, he was himself a Babylonian Jew. The first theory says that the LXX Hebrew text was in common use among Egyptian Jews and by Jews in Judea rather than the MT text type. I don't know how true this is as there is very little information on the subject available to me.
In short, it is possible that Jesus was not quoting from the LXX itself, but was in fact quoting from the LXX Hebrew text type.
One possibility to consider when we see that many of the quotes in the Christian Scriptures match the LXX is that they may not actually be quoted from the Septuagint per se. What I mean by this is that the LXX was only translated about 200 years before Christ was born, so it is very likely that the Hebrew version underlying the LXX was still in everyday use. So it may not be that Jesus and the Apostles were actually quoting from the Greek translation, they may have been quoting from the Hebrew version that the LXX was translated from. I read recently theories that the text that became the MT was either in use in the temple and once Jerusalem fell in 70 it became the default due to its connections. The second theory is that it was the version used in Babylon and that when Jerusalem fell it was taken out by the Rabbi who later led the Jewish community from Jamnia, he was himself a Babylonian Jew. The first theory says that the LXX Hebrew text was in common use among Egyptian Jews and by Jews in Judea rather than the MT text type. I don't know how true this is as there is very little information on the subject available to me.
In short, it is possible that Jesus was not quoting from the LXX itself, but was in fact quoting from the LXX Hebrew text type.
It is time Christians were known more by their likeness to Christ than by their notions of Christ – Lucretia Mott
#15 Guest_d&c_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 May 2004 - 09:23 AM
Thanks all for your contributions. Clearly the Septuagint was in places accepted as a valid reflection of God’s word by the inspired writers of the New Testament. Yet as we know, there are many places where the LXX differs from the Masoretic text, and there are many instances where the NT writers appear to make a point of exposition based upon a fine point of textual reading. Take Ps. 41:9,10. This is quoted from the LXX in Mk. 14:18,21. Yet Jn. 13:18 quotes the same passage from the Hebrew text, with a slight difference. Which was inspired? Surely, both sources of the original were accepted as worthy of quotation. So from this evidence alone we should be wary of concluding that the differences between LXX and the Hebrew text are mutually incompatible. The LXX as it stands, by the way, gives a somewhat different chronology through the genealogies, making the time since Adam far less than the 6000 years we often assume.
Love to all
d&c
Love to all
d&c
#16 Guest_Johanan_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 May 2004 - 01:04 PM
I recall bro. John Adey writing several articles to demonstrate that it is not a case of the NT quoting the LXX, but the LXX quoting the NT. I.e. the LXX was later changed to match the NT texts.
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
#17
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 7,730 posts
Psi
Posted 21 May 2004 - 01:28 PM
Johanan, on May 21 2004, 03:04 PM, said:
I recall bro. John Adey writing several articles to demonstrate that it is not a case of the NT quoting the LXX, but the LXX quoting the NT. I.e. the LXX was later changed to match the NT texts.
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
#18
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 34,244 posts
Omega
Posted 21 May 2004 - 01:41 PM
Johanan, on May 21 2004, 11:04 PM, said:
I recall bro. John Adey writing several articles to demonstrate that it is not a case of the NT quoting the LXX, but the LXX quoting the NT. I.e. the LXX was later changed to match the NT texts.
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
#19
-
- Members
-
- 22 posts
Beta
Posted 24 May 2004 - 02:19 AM
Johanan, on May 21 2004, 11:04 PM, said:
I recall bro. John Adey writing several articles to demonstrate that it is not a case of the NT quoting the LXX, but the LXX quoting the NT. I.e. the LXX was later changed to match the NT texts.
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Anyone come across this idea before?
Is it at all possible?
Frankly it is a circular argument, the NT quotes are mostly LXX text-type, they are usually very different from the MT Hebrew texts, which means that they had to either come from the LXX itself or from a non-MT Hebrew text-type, either way the argument falls flat on its face for that simple reason.
The theory had some possibility of being real before they began discovering non-Pentateuch LXX fragments. There were two Greek translations made by Jews after the time of Christ, Aquila's version is one, and both were included in Origen's Hexapla.
It is time Christians were known more by their likeness to Christ than by their notions of Christ – Lucretia Mott
#20
-
- Christadelphian
-
- 254 posts
Lambda
Posted 29 July 2004 - 10:10 AM
Barnes Notes on Isaiah (available with Quickverse) has a list of quotations of Isaiah in the NT. He claims to rely mainly on Horne for the following. His categories are:
1. Quotations agreeing exactly with the Hebrew text - 9 occurences
2. Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew text - 17 occurences
3. Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense but not in words - 7 occurences
4. Quotations which give the general sense, but which abridge, or add to it - 2 occurences
5. Quotations which are taken from several different places - 3 occurences
6. Quotations differing from the Hebrew text, but agreeing with the Septuagint text - 2 occurences
7. Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in the Hebrew text - 5 occurences
8. Allusion to a passage in Isaiah - 1 occurence
9. Quotations above where the Hebrew text agrees with the Septuagint text - 7 occurences
10. Quotations which differ from the Hebrew text and the Septuagint text - 2 occurences
It seems probable that writers like Paul, with the Spirit's guidance selected the best rendition available. Paul was proficient at Hebrew and Greek. We sometimes quote from different Bible versions.
Kind regards
Trevor
1. Quotations agreeing exactly with the Hebrew text - 9 occurences
2. Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew text - 17 occurences
3. Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense but not in words - 7 occurences
4. Quotations which give the general sense, but which abridge, or add to it - 2 occurences
5. Quotations which are taken from several different places - 3 occurences
6. Quotations differing from the Hebrew text, but agreeing with the Septuagint text - 2 occurences
7. Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in the Hebrew text - 5 occurences
8. Allusion to a passage in Isaiah - 1 occurence
9. Quotations above where the Hebrew text agrees with the Septuagint text - 7 occurences
10. Quotations which differ from the Hebrew text and the Septuagint text - 2 occurences
It seems probable that writers like Paul, with the Spirit's guidance selected the best rendition available. Paul was proficient at Hebrew and Greek. We sometimes quote from different Bible versions.
Kind regards
Trevor
#21
-
- Members
- 6 posts
Posted 27 February 2005 - 05:27 AM
Alethia, on Feb 13 2003, 09:11 PM, said:
A) That Jesus may have quoted from a different version altogether, neither the LXX nor the MT.
I had the privilege of participating in a mission in East Africa. When I was in Uganda, many spoke English. So, I would preach in English. Sometimes I would paraphrase, sometimes I would quote. Sometimes (well, once) I said a verse in Luganda, the native language (well, one of 80). In a spoken word oriented society, I think this arrangement would not have been unusual.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
