Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fascinating Quote On Use of the LXX in NT
#1
I just received Lancelot C. Brenton's translation of the Greek Tanakh called "The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English". Here is what the translator has to say about the use of the LXX in the Greek New Testament:

"The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.

In consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, -- a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version , which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint.

The use, however, which the writers of the New Testament have made of the Septuagint version must always invest it with a peculiar interest; we thus see what honour God may be pleased to put on an honestly-made version, since we find that inspired writers often used such a version, when it was sufficiently near the original to suit the purpose for which it was cited, instead of rendering the Hebrew text de novo on every occasion.

Another important point on which the Septuagint stands in close connection with the New Testament is the general phraseology of the version, -- a phraseology in which the traces of Hebrew elements are most marked, but with regard to which we should mistake greatly if we supposed that it originated with the New Testament writers. Thus we may see that the study of the Septuagint is almost needful to any biblical scholars who wishes to estimate adequately the phraseology and usus loquendi of the New Testament."
Reply
#2
One could check to see if the quotes in the NT, which are said to come from the Greek version of the OT, read the same in the Aramaic OT, which was translated from an older version of the Hebrew text, than what we have currently in the Hebrew Masoretic text, which readings The Aramaic OT) might match up with those in the Aramaic NT, which may be quotes from it, and or the Aramaic Targums which were available at the time...and which (The Aramaic readings)...may match up even closer to that what is found translated in the Greek NT.

It would be an interesting study.

.
Reply
#3
I would love to get some of the Targumim in print. I know Etheridge actually translated Onkelos.
Reply
#4
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact7.htm">http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact7.htm</a><!-- m -->

ScorpioSniper2:

Please take a look at the commentary here (Check the date!) from Acts 7.
2 items of interest, from your perspective:

1. "Verse 59. "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God" - The word God is not found in any MS. or version, nor in any of the primitive fathers except Chrysostom..."

Yikes! Chrysostom? Very late in the game to find him rummaging around.

2. "Verse 14. "Threescore and fifteen souls." - There are several difficulties here, which it is hoped the reader will find satisfactorily removed in the note on Gen. xlvi. 20. It is well known that in Gen. xlvi. 27, and in Deut. x. 22, their number is said to be threescore and ten; but Stephen quotes from the Septuagint, which adds five persons to the account which are not in the Hebrew text, Machir, Gilead, Sutelaam, Taham, and Edem..."

Acts 7 is VERY interesting for Aramaic Followers and Stephen's use of the Septuagint is curious at the least.
Something is going on here in this chapter.
Whad'er'ya' think?

CW
Reply
#5
We don't know if the Septuagint, which oldest copy is from 200AD, and the oldest Hebrew Text is from 900AD, were different in the first century.

So, to state that he quoted the septuagint is not based on facts. According to Josephus, the common jews did not speak Greek. So, why would stephan read Greek (the LXX)? Is there any evidence?

To say it on other words, just because Stephs quote looks as if from the Septuagint, it does not prove that he indeed quoted the Septuagint. He also could have quoted a now lost Hebrew or Aramaic source.
Reply
#6
distazo-

I wanted to give this Post a few days without comment ("Go ahead, Charlie...Take a little longer..." <!-- s:yell: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yell.gif" alt=":yell:" title="Yell" /><!-- s:yell: --> ).
I have a coupla' thoughts:

1. The very strongest version of your comment would not allow any commentary at all. We could find a copy of "some" document that dated to 300 BCE and we still would not know if it "was the same as the original version". We might not even know if the "Original" was the "Original". This is not a "real complaint" against what you state. Your statement is simply a very, very strong standard. It would be very difficult to imagine much progress coming from such a standard although sometimes, such a standard might be necessary.

2. "So, to state that he quoted the septuagint is not based on facts..." Technically true of Clarke's commentary but Clarke was not writing about bicycle pumps either. "Why is it SEVENTY FIVE and not SEVENTY?"

3. "According to Josephus, the common jews did not speak Greek." Now we are getting closer.

4 A. "So, why would stephan read Greek (the LXX)?" Exactly! Thus, the problem. There is one solution based on Acts 6:

Acts 6: 9 - 12 (RSV):

[9] Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre'nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili'cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen.
[10] But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.
[11] Then they secretly instigated men, who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
[12] And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council..."

Stephen could be speaking "to the crowd". He might have reason to speak to "...the Cyrenians, Alexandrians...those from Cilicia and Asia..." using the version they knew, the Septuagint. The "Blasphemous Words" might have been the Original Words and NOT the Septuagint's! However:

4 B: As you demand: "Is there any evidence?" What we HAVE is "75". We have in addition to "75", only this: He speaks to the High Priest, since the High Priest states:

Act 7: 1 (RSV):

[1] And the high priest said, "Is this so?"

Would the Inspired Stephen speak to the High Priest quoting the Septuagint? Would the High Priest respond without correcting Stephen?

5. A greater problem thereby presents itself. The WRITER of Acts gives us "75".
"He also could have quoted a now lost Hebrew or Aramaic source." To turn the argument back on itself, "Is there any evidence?".
He COULD have indeed quoted a lost Hebrew or Aramaic Source but this must be introduced with no evidence or reason to attach itself. If the very strong standard is used, we are left with no way out.

6. Paul Younan: Do you have any indicator from any Source that the number was "70" rather than "75"? A quick survey of the Aramaics on the 'Net all say "75" (...three score and fifteen...).

7. Stephen is Inspired and about to be Martyred. If the Septuagint is NOT correct in use then here is evidence of tampering at the very start.
Chapter 7 is very volatile for its content and its use through 2000 years. If it has been tampered with at the start, then what of the material that follows?
"There's something going on here".

Y/N/M?

Thank you Distazo and all,

CW
CW
Reply
#7
Charles Wilson Wrote:distazo-

I wanted to give this Post a few days without comment ("Go ahead, Charlie...Take a little longer..." <!-- s:yell: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yell.gif" alt=":yell:" title="Yell" /><!-- s:yell: --> ).
I have a coupla' thoughts:

7. Stephen is Inspired and about to be Martyred. If the Septuagint is NOT correct in use then here is evidence of tampering at the very start.
Chapter 7 is very volatile for its content and its use through 2000 years. If it has been tampered with at the start, then what of the material that follows?
"There's something going on here".

Y/N/M?

Thank you Distazo and all,

CW
CW

There is nothing serious going on.
Hebrew Numbers are the first candidates to be lost or formed in time. If you compare the Samaritan OT, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek etc, you'll see they are ALL very consistent and that a few exceptions can be explained, but, numbers for some reason, where not so easy and easily lost in time.

For instance, Jospehus information gives us a flood date of about +/1 3100 bc. This is in according to Maya sources as well.
Why does the MT give us something like 2700 bc? Some material for you to chew on.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://kiel0.home.xs4all.nl/genealogie_verschillen.htm">http://kiel0.home.xs4all.nl/genealogie_verschillen.htm</a><!-- m --> (differences in genealogy use translate.bing.com to read it in English)
Reply
#8
"Hebrew Numbers are the first candidates to be lost or formed in time."

I am inclined to agree with you, based on my research. I certainly yield to your greater knowledge here. From what I see in several Time Markers and Mishmarot Service, however, you are correct.

Thanx,

CW
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)