Doctrine Discussion about matters of the faith.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Tandi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Septuagint Question

I am searching through previous threads for help in answering a friend's question, but thought I would post it here for any of you to share your best answers, as I am new to these Apologetics. Thank you for your help. Here is the question:

Quote:
What does one make of the New Testament use of the LXX when the KJV relies on the MT? Also, the LXX version of Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter than the MT version of the same. Why does the New Testament quote from the LXX Vorlage of the book of Jeremiah when the KJV uses the MT version of Jeremiah?
Shalom,

Tandi
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 01-06-2009, 12:05 PM
atlas's Avatar
atlas atlas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 463
Default

Tandi,


The LXX is a myth, there is no such thing. I have posed what is called the LXX here on the forum you can go and see what they call the LXX.


Atlas
  #3  
Old 01-06-2009, 03:37 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Brother Will has some good articles worth reading:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html

Peace and Love,
Stephen
  #4  
Old 01-06-2009, 07:36 PM
atlas's Avatar
atlas atlas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 463
Default

Stephanos,


Thank for the links I'll check it out.


Atlas
  #5  
Old 01-06-2009, 11:58 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandi;(friend's question)
What does one make of the New Testament use of the LXX when the KJV relies on the MT? Also, the LXX version of Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter than the MT version of the same. Why does the New Testament quote from the LXX Vorlage of the book of Jeremiah when the KJV uses the MT version of Jeremiah?
Greetings, Tandi.

One recent thread, 12/2008, here was:

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=800
Translation or Paraphrase?


Discussing particularly Luke 4 and Isaiah - Edersheim - Hebraisti=Hebrew.

The irony is that men like John Owen had a superb understanding of the Greek OT deficiencies and that the NT authors simply applied a very pure type of 'Holy Spirit midrash' (my term, using midrash in the positive sense of solid understanding and interpretation and synthesis) when referencing the Tanach passages. That is why Jesus and Paul both would combine multiple Tanach verses in one beautiful exposition, one with 'NT value-added', ie. not just slavishly literal to the OT but with an anointing and grace and wisdom from above.

Later the Greek OT was "smoothed" towards the NT in a very absurd manner during the times of its major translations, the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. With Psalm 14 from Romans 3 being the incredible "smoking cannon". Which is why generally the supposed NT-LXX agreements are actually agreement with nothing earlier than the ultra-corrupt Codex Vaticanus (4th century).

It is not even likely that the NT authors had most of the Greek OT available in circulation, based upon Josephus indicating very clearly the lack of the Tanach history books even 30-50 years after NT composition. Even with Josephus being in the cultural center of Rome (very little Hebrew or Aramaic spoken) where there would be far more interest in a Greek or Latin OT than in Israel.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 01-07-2009 at 12:14 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-08-2009, 04:17 AM
Tmonk Tmonk is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 82
Default

As far as the LXX goes, one needs to know some history. There is no reason to doubt that the Torah was translated to Greek early, at least 2nd century BC, that being Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. When the rest were translated , its hard to say.

The Jews divided the OT into 3 categories , The Torah (Law), Prophets , Writings. The later two were slowly translated later as each book was needed.

The Old Testament as a whole was not put under one cover until about 90 AD after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem around 70 AD. Why put it together so late? The Jews had Jerusalem as a religious center and was very centered around local temples as well. At this time books were rare because they were somewhat expensive and hard to make, so scrolls were the common media. The Roman invasion caused a need for preservation.

As far as the NT quotes matching, its simple for a few reasons. Both are Hebrew to Greek to English so they should match in how we read it. Besides, any Hebrew translation has a little dynamic equivalence / paraphrase to it because of the nature of the Hebrew language. Its not a perfect word for word, it would make for very bad English grammar if it was. The OT of the Latin Vulgate is slavishly literal which makes it somewhat hard to read.

Our Lord Jesus Christ most likely did not use a Greek OT even when Scripture quotes Him as actually "reading" from Scripture. In Judah or Israel temples only used Hebrew texts, the Greek texts were mainly for Jews living outside of the land of Israel that actually spoke Greek as a primary language.

The Apostles , post Crucifixion, may have used a Greek OT when preaching to the Gentiles as they would NOT have spoken or even read Hebrew or Aramaic.
  #7  
Old 01-08-2009, 07:19 AM
Tandi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you all for your very helpful posts and links. Keep them coming! Whether I convince my friend eventually or not, I am enjoying the learning experience and the opportunity to contend for my faith.

Another question:

Did the KJV translators make use of the LXX? Specifically, how did they come up with the translation of Psalm 22:16........"they pierced my hands and my feet" as opposed to "like a lion at my hands and feet."

My friend says that before the uncovering of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), there were virtually no authoritative mss with a Hebrew basis for this reading. The only textual foundation for this reading was the LXX. He also says the only difference in rendering this passage differently is whether there is a jod or a vav.

Shalom,

Tandi
  #8  
Old 01-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Tmonk Tmonk is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 82
Default

Yes the KJV translators did use it as a word reference given the odd nature of the Hebrew language. Also they used the OT of the Latin as a comparison. Along with previous English translations. In the 1611 preface it is referred to as "The Seventy"

The pierce or lion argument is somewhat complicated. The entire debate is whether the Hebrew reads k'aru (pierced) or k'ari (like a lion). The difference between the Yud and Vev are small but the DSS has kaaru which seems to agree with the LXX and Syriac and also the Latin.

"Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reading in question is not preserved at Qumran, but in the Psalms scroll from Nahal Hever (5/6HevPs), which is textually very close to the Masoretic Text. In line 12 of column 10 we read: "They have pierced my hands and feet"! For the crucial work () the Hebrew form is grammatically difficult; but it is clearly a verb, not a noun and means they have bored or they have dug or they have pierced."

So obviously have a Jewish misinterpretation of the verse to deny Christ. I hope clears it up for you. Also, the same word is translated as dig or opened throughout the rest of the OT, but literally means to dig in, bore through.


"My friend says that before the uncovering of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), there were virtually no authoritative mss with a Hebrew basis for this reading. The only textual foundation for this reading was the LXX. He also says the only difference in rendering this passage differently is whether there is a jod or a vav."

True, but the Jewish translation of this passage also pretty much stands alone. The "lion" rendering is basically a Jewish bias. The majority of the ancient translations read pierced. Only the MT, Targums and the Symmachus greek read "like a lion".

There is more evidence of a Jewish altering than anything
  #9  
Old 01-08-2009, 01:39 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
Yes the KJV translators did use it as a word reference given the odd nature of the Hebrew language. Also they used the OT of the Latin as a comparison.
And the Peshitta Syriac was also available, although sometimes that might have the same ambiguity as the Hebrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
The pierce or lion argument is somewhat complicated. The entire debate is whether the Hebrew reads k'aru (pierced) or k'ari (like a lion). The difference between the Yud and Vev are small but the DSS has kaaru which seems to agree with the LXX and Syriac and also the Latin.
While that is essentially true, it can be contested a smidgen in various ways.

Note: The Hebrew 'like a lion' reading also suffers from severe grammatical difficulties, often hand-waved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmonk
So obviously have a Jewish misinterpretation of the verse to deny Christ.
This is a bit quick to judge the motives on a very difficult very minor (in terms of the physical text) squiggle type of variant. There is in fact Midrash and other Jewish support (I'll try to post or link on that tonight) after the 1st century, for the true verbal reading. And there was a minority reading in the Masorestic Text that was in fact the true reading (similar to Joshua 21:36-37 or what we have in the Johannine Comma situations, excellent and powerful auxiliary support, internal and external). And as the Targum appears to be support for the corrupted reading, we have to allow that it may have occurred more accidentally than deliberately, at least originally. While there are some indications that the Jewish view later circled the horses around 'like a lion' (perhaps a bit after 1000 AD and especially in the nouveau anti-mish after 1980 that ignores their own historical writings). btw .. Even the issues around the Ben Hayim Hebrew can be a bit unclear, which is an element I would like to check and if necessary unravel.

Basically everything you wrote is true and well-informed, Tmonk, however the Midrash and minority Masoretic reading and other Hebraic support were not made fully clear (also the grammatical difficulty).

Also we could give a more definitive run-through of the ancient versions, I remember that Emanuel Tov gave good weight to Aquila's Greek OT supporting the verbal reading in his defending the Flint-Abegg DSS translation (in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

btw, I think Tandi's friend actually knows or knew most all of this, but has somehow conveniently forgotten the evidences in trying to 'justify' moving away from Bible faith.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 01-08-2009 at 01:44 PM.
  #10  
Old 01-09-2009, 09:40 AM
atlas's Avatar
atlas atlas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 463
Default

Tandi,


Here is some very good information on the LXX. Go watch it and you'll learn something.


The LXX - Once Upon A Time by Dr. Sam Gipp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ER5FXGL54Q


Atlas
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com