[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Brandon, you make excellent points from the scholarship of Alan Millard about Hebrew at the time of Jesus, also Ken Penner has shown rather conclusively that the translation of Hebraisti as 'Aramaic' in the modern versions is an error. The word for Aramaic would be Syriac or Chaldee, Hebraisti was .. surprise .. Hebrew.

Originally Posted by Diligent

- where the LXX agrees with the NT it is simply because the LXX got it right.

Nope. The Greek OT was smoothed in many places to match NT readings, such as the awkward Greek OT Cainan addition (I believe the Floyd Jones paper discusses that in some depth, also issues like the number 70 or 75 out of Egypt). These tamperings were not 'right', this was Bible correcting.

Before going into a lot of details, may I suggest everybody interested in this do a little study on Psalm 14 in the Greek OT (hint, also look at Romans 3) -- to get a picture of how blatant such tampering with the Greek scriptures could be.

Tim, this understanding must precede any analysis of how many NT quotes are closer to or match one text or another. The first issue is simple, if the Greek MSS from 400 AD and later are closer to the NT, is it because the NT was using the Greek (usually an orphan reading with no DSS, Vulgate, Targum, Peshitta, Targumim, Hebrew MSS, Talmud & Midrash or even early church writer support) or because the Greek OT was tampered ?

Note: the tamperings were from many sides, Jewish anti-messianic tamperings as of Aquila and incompetent alexandrian scribes (good 'ol Vaticanus) being two distinct and separate types of Greek OT shenanigans. This is a long discussion in itself, considering the editions of Theodotian and Symmachus also being examined, and the Jerome reference to recensions, including Lucian. (Yes, the Lucian recension is not a Westcott-Hort myth in the OT, only in the NT was it a modernist fabrication !).

I am not going into all the questions about why the Holy Spirit was not constrained to only reference the Tanach (OT) woodenly, literally, one-dimensionally in the NT. On this forum most of the readers will understand that easily, whether you consider it Holy Spirit insight, or Matthew's midrash, or the liberty of the Lord Jesus to combine verses - and more.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The excellent Floyd Jones article is available on the web.

http://www.frugalwater.com/LXX.pdf
http://www.christianmissionconnectio...l_Analysis.pdf
The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis

Please note that the article, while excellent, has some omissions, and a small amount of scholarship that can be questioned (as would any article). Two very significant omissions I put in the posts above - no discussion of Psalm 14, and he does not have the Josephus quotes referenced.

Originally Posted by Connie

Are you saying that there are surviving copies of the Pentateuch that are earlier?.

Just to clarify this, both comments were correct. There are segments, many chapters in various MSS, in the centuries before the first extant full Greek MSS. Robert Kraft has a page listing all the early Greek material.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/ear...lypaplist.html
Chronological List of Early Papyri and MSS for LXX/OG Study (plus the same MSS in Canonical Order appended)

Note that most, almost all, of the earlier material is from the Pentateuch.

Originally Posted by Connie

We have ABSOLUTELY NO copies of the New Testament earlier ... 2nd century and 3rd century ..

Actually 4th century, 350 AD to 400 AD for the earliest NT MSS.

Originally Posted by Connie

.. we certainly assume those were preceded by not only the originals but many hundreds of copies of them

True, but that is because we have strong collaborative evidences. The 1st century accurate history of the writings, the references to these books in a dozen or more writers from the 1st to 3rd century. With the Greek OT, until you get to the 2nd century AD, there is little hard evidence. At that point you get some early church writers discussing differences, like Justin Martyr.

Incidentally, because the material is a bit complex, I am not a fan of the Ruckman-Gipp 'myth' argument, even while considering the Greek OT as totally corrupt and virtually useless (except as one of many language sources that have helped with the difficult Hebrew words, especially in the ages from Rashi and Kimchi to the King James Bible). What they mean may be true, after explanations are given, but it can be understandably interpreted by others as a denial that there was ANY early Greek OT, not even the Pentateuch, at the time of Jesus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Brother Tim]

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled. My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all.

[Brother Tim]

Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled.

Welcome. I actually picked up this information on a skeptic board, where it was being used for confused reasons. Yet the obvious implications, which we see clearly and 'scholarship' has missed, are totally compelling.

It is as close to a one-quote (ok..two) settlement of a dispute as you are likely to see. How anyone can claim that there was a circulating full Greek OT at the time of Jesus and the apostolic writings of the NT, in the wake of the Josephus reference to the lack of the history books in Greek, is a real puzzle.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all....Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

Yes. This is one of those malleable terms, and that is one of the problems in ever using it without ultra-caution (I generally use 'Greek OT'). 'LXX' or 'Septuagint' is meant to give an impression of antiquity (what occurred c 250 BC) to MSS that are 4th century and later, even knowing the ultra-squirrelly transmissional history of the first centuries AD. Even some in scholarship realms recoil at the loose usage of the term.

Shalom,
Steven

[Brother Tim]

"ultra-squirrelly" - is that Hebrew or Greek?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Nope. The Greek OT was smoothed in many places to match NT readings, such as the awkward Greek OT Cainan addition (I believe the Floyd Jones paper discusses that in some depth, also issues like the number 70 or 75 out of Egypt). These tamperings were not 'right', this was Bible correcting.

I must have not been clear. Many people try to prove the validity of the LXX by saying that the NT writers quoted from it. My point is that this is a poor argument and that if the LXX agrees with the Textus Receptus on a particular "translation," it is not because the NT writers quoted the LXX.

I just took a brief glance at some Wikipedia entries and find it treated as historical fact that the Septuagint existed, also that Philo referred to it in the century before Christ and that Jerome used it in his translation of the Vulgate Bible. So that is more than just Origen given as source of information, Jerry.

Since when is Wickedpedia a sound source on spiritual and textual issues?

Jerome lived around the same time as Origen - so that is no proof for a Greek OT existing before Christ.

This was the quote I was referring to by Edersheim (the rest of the paragraph is mine - what is in quotations is from Edersheim - I included the rest as commentary on Origen):

Origen, among his many false doctrines, denied the inspiration of the Scriptures, was responsible for the corruption of Biblical texts (specifically in the Alexandrian stream of texts), and allegorized/spiritualized the Bible. He has been referred to by some as the father of textual criticism, and we can see by his many changes and editing of the Biblical texts that he was the one to lay the foundation for modern Bible versions. It is also believed that before the time of Christ, the Greek Septuagint only contained the books of Moses - until Origen took and translated the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, according to his fanciful suppositions. "From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch - for to it only the testimony refers - was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage - if not by direction - of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus)." (Alfred Edersheim, The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, Volume 1 Page 24) In other words, this corrupt text that modern version editors and translators like to use and justify their corrections with was in fact not written until several hundred years after Christ. It is not reliable at all.

Doing a search in the link Steven gave above, shows that this is on page 19 of that edition.

But why does Paul quote Old Testament passages so differently from what we have from the Hebrew? If he wasn't quoting some pre-existing Greek version, what was he doing? And secondly, why wasn't he gungho in KJVO-type fashion to call people Bible correctors for having thoroughly rather than throughly in their Bibles? He quotes Habakkuk 1:5 "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you" as "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you" in Acts 13:41. This is a KJVO nightmare. How did he change "among the heathen" to "ye despisers" and how did "wonder marvellously" change into "and perish"? Was he quoting some sub-par Greek translation that everyone was used to? Was he quoting from memory and not getting it quite right? Was Luke writing it down from memory and not getting what Paul said quite right? Was he making his own OT translation on the fly, and if so, why is it so different? These are all questions that Bibleprotector (more than any other) must needs consider. Here he is straining out the nat of betrayeth vs bewrayeth (even though they means the same thing!) but Paul is saying "and perish" where the text he is refering to says "wonder marvellously."

BTW, the LXX that we have today doesn't match very many NT quotations of the OT. It is clear that if the NT writers were quoting a Greek translation of Scripture, it is certainly NOT the LXX that we have today.