Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Why are there LXX quotes in the Aramaic NT?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
There aren't.

As you know, the LXX was translated by 72 Jews in Alexandria from a Hebrew source. The logic is quite simple: If the LXX has a Hebrew source as it's background text, then there MUST have been a Hebrew text which, at one point in time, read that way.

Many times the Peshitta NT seems to be quoting from the MSS, sometimes it seems like the LXX, other times you would swear it's from the POT or an Aramaic Targum like Onkelos (there are examples of this).....sometimes it appears to be quoting something which is not currently in existence (there are examples of this as well.) In other words, there is no one single OT source that the NT quotes from.

The fact of the matter is, the Peshitta NT is not quoting directly from any of these's quoting from the text that these sources are quoting from.

Think of it this way:

(1) Several versions of Text (A) exist, each with slight variant readings.
(2) Text (B) is a translation of Text (A)
(3) Text (C) quotes Text (A)
(4) Over the centuries, Text (A) becomes Text (A-standardized). All the original variant manuscripts of Text (A) are eventually lost due to the standardization efforts of scribes. Only Text (A-standardized) remains in the original language.

Now, when someone 2,000 years later examines Text (C) and says AHA! LOOK! Text (C) is quoting Text (B), because there are no copies of Text (A-standardized) that read this way!

But that begs the question. Text (A) is lost.....and Text (C), while it appears to be quoting Text (B), is in reality quoting Text(A)....of which Text (B) is a faithful witness.

It only appears that Text (C) is quoting Text (B). Text (C) is, in reality, quoting (A).

Text (A) - Pre-Masoretic Hebrew originals with variant readings. (Dead Sea Scrolls are surviving example)
Text (B) - LXX
Text (C) - NT (any language)
Text (A-standardized) - MSS Hebrew

The Masoretes, of course, were responsible for transforming (A) into (A-standardized).
The only known source about birth of LXX is the Letter of Aristeas.
Four ancient writers including Josephus claim that there is no other evidence.
It is a question if this letter is credible.
I was exploring this topic and it appears that there is no evidence that LXX existed before Origen,
no manuscripts whatsoever except some Greek translation(s) of part(s) of Exodus. After Origen we have
bunch of the LXX manuscripts. So, probably Origen is creator of the Greek LXX.

St. Jerome picked Hebrew Bible for translation into Vulgate. He complained that Origen borrowed and inserted into LXX
verses and there is no any other LXX text at his time except what was produced by Origen.
Origen did his revision having also Greek NT manuscripts at his hand and did his correction as he thought
is right for him.
So, as for me, the LXX origin and nature is under big question. Plus we have many versions of LXX corrupted
just like corrupted Greek NT manuscripts.
Thanks for posting this! I had been questioning this for some time, and had no idea where to start. It's a bit overwhelming coming into all these "original texts" not knowing what's really original.