Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint?

[Dave-W]

In a number of examples "Tabitha arise" for example

Talitha kumi. I like the translation "girl under the Tallit arise.

 

[Dave-W]

So then the "better translation" is going to be directly from the Hebrew for Hebrew texts - and this is the language that would have been accepted in Judea. But not likely that they could assume all readers outside of Israel would have access to.

Correct. Which is why the NT got transmitted in Greek.

 

[tall73]

Scholarly work is where it starts. Many scholars have already rethought the worth of the LXX. This has especially reignited since Qumran. Both Christian as well as Jewish scholars. Look up Emmanuel Tov especially. But for people like me, I just benefit second hand from research, in the form of translations. It hasn't quite trickled down to this level yet (for most modern translations). This is why I simply resort back to old readings (like the KJV). They also had a healthy respect for the LXX. Same with Jerome a thousand years before, even though he mostly used Hebrew.

This Bible uses a translation from the LXX into English, as well as the NT from the NKJV, so a textus receptus based text, if you are interested in such readings.

The Orthodox Study Bible - Hardcover edition

Also the MEV uses a textus receptus base for the NT, a Masoretic for the OT, but when quotes seem to follow the LXX in the NT then the OT is updated to parallel the NT.

This may sound odd, but it would be essentially using those renderings which we know the Spirit-inspired NT used for OT passages, but doesn't necessarily then also endorse all the LXX readings.

Since there is some evidence, as noted earlier in the thread, that the LXX preserves a different early Hebrew text type, also reflected in the NT quotes, this then is to me a helpful method.

I generally tend to use the NKJV as it uses the TR and the Masoretic, but then also documents any readings of the MT and the critical text.

 

[tall73]

The quotes of Jesus or Paul in new versions today may match readings in the Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices. The manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD/CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.
History of the Bible

Much of the information you are quoting seems more interested in undercutting the critical text than really looking into whether the early church used the LXX in some of its quotations. Or perhaps the bigger question, why the NT, even in the KJV for instance, still contains readings more similar to the LXX than to the Masoretic. It is often said they used a "Septuagint-type text" because the quotes follow what is now found in the LXX. Whether you think the LXX predated the NT or not, you still have to explain why the NT quotes at times follow readings different than the masoretic OT.

Moreover, the whole argument is a little strange for another reason. It is noted that the critical text was not used by the church. One of the strongest points in favor of the majority text is its use by the Greek Orthodox church from early times. They did not adopt the critical text or manuscripts for their liturgy. So this is an indication that they rejected the critical manuscripts, or that they were not widespread enough to get into major circulation.

However, they used the Greek OT text in their services as well. So it sounds like you need to do more than just associate the Greek with the critical text.

 

[tall73]

Also Reddogs, Ellen White used the Revised version at times.

The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible

 

[reddogs]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

If only that was true, if you look you will find there are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text) which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable. The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the Alexandrian codices.

From what I have come across it seems that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason.

Here is a good description of how the corruptions were weighed and found wanting, in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

"..The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of
the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.

It is believed that the Minority Texts were butchered by Egyptian gnosticism with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The gnostics were a group that did not believe:
In the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins. There are many alterations in the Minority Texts, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 versus from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to omitting First and Second Peter. The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places...."

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html

Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...."


http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html

 

[tall73]

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth.

There are quite a few differences between the majority text editions and the Textus Receptus. This is why the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus readings similar to KJV, but then notes variants from the Textus Receptus in both the Majority and NA/UBS critical texts.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus either used Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic scriptures were available in the 1st century. It was probably similar to the LXX, and the Hebrew Scriptures available were likely different from what we have today.

 

[EdricBlanton857]

It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew. https://missionhillscarwraps.com/

 

[BobRyan]

It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew. San Fernando Valley Car Wraps and Vehicle Wraps - Get a Custom Look

The Gospel writers were using Greek texts because their readers would include a lot of Greeks not just Hebrews.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The
Comparisons between The Majority (KJV) and Minority (NIV) Texts

to answer your question Hellenism.

 

[BobRyan]

There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The abbreviation used is LXX for this Septuagint version and it is said it was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

I doubt that Hebrews in Israel had abandoned Hebrew for Greek.

But -- it looks like 3rd century B.C. synagogues were created and were using the Greek LXX

The Septuagint, LXX, origin, textual transmission 282 BC

 

[klutedavid]

And the NT writers - were writing in Greek - which was the international language of the Roman Empire still left as a hold-over from the time of the Greek empire.

The Letter to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew.

 

[BobRyan]

It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew.

The NT writers show that Jesus and others were speaking in Hebrew and that they were simply translating it into Greek for the Greek reader.

Mark 15:34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Matt 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Matt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

Mark 5:41
And taking the child by the hand, He *said to her, “Talitha, kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!” ).

Mark 15:22 Then they *brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull.

John 1:38
And Jesus turned and saw them following, and *said to them, “What are you seeking?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?”

John 1:41
He first *found his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ).

John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

John 9:7
and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he left and washed, and came back seeing.

Acts 4:36
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),

Acts 9:36
Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which when translated means Dorcas); this woman was excelling in acts of kindness and charity which she did habitually.

Acts 13:8
But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.

 

[BobRyan]

The Letter to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew.

A reasonable guess --- but the facts do not bear that assumption out.

=========================
from: Was The Book Of Hebrews Originally Written In Hebrew?.

"There is a widely held assumption that since the Book of Hebrews was written to Hebrews, then it must have been originally written in the Hebrew language. However, such an assumption is largely unfounded, and there are a few problems with it.

Firstly, if the Book of Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, we have no manuscript evidence for it. We have several Greek manuscripts of Hebrews, but no Hebrew ones. It is almost as if the Hebrew Christians did not care to preserve the original Hebrew text of the Book of Hebrews, but yet they bothered to meticulously preserve the Greek translation in copy after copy for generation after generation. This does not make sense. If the Book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, the Christians would have definitely sought to preserve the original Hebrew text in some way, and we would still have at least one surviving copy today, or at least evidence for it.

Secondly, it is not true that the Hebrews, i.e., Jews, preferred being written to in the Hebrew language. By the time of Jesus, many Jews were more fluent in Greek than in Hebrew. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is recorded to have conversed primarily in Greek. Even today, many Jews around the world cannot read or understand Classical Hebrew. This includes the Jews of Modern Israel who speak Modern Hebrew, which is very different from the Classical Hebrew in which the Hebrew Bible was written. Sure, they might be able to vocalize familiar texts, but they would not be able to translate or understand a Classical Hebrew text given to them on the spot.

Thirdly, the Greek text of the Book of Hebrews suggests strongly that it was an original work, and not a translation of an original Hebrew text. The writing style makes it impossible to get a grammatically sound Hebrew text through reverse translation. Moreover, wherever the writer of Hebrews quotes and alludes from the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), he would not do so from the Hebrew text, but from the popularly used Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible of the time—even where those Greek translations differed significantly from the Hebrew text! Therefore, it is more likely that the Book of Hebrews was written originally in Greek rather than in Hebrew."​

 

[klutedavid]

A reasonable guess --- but the facts do not bear that assumption out.

=========================
from: Was The Book Of Hebrews Originally Written In Hebrew?.

"There is a widely held assumption that since the Book of Hebrews was written to Hebrews, then it must have been originally written in the Hebrew language. However, such an assumption is largely unfounded, and there are a few problems with it.

Firstly, if the Book of Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, we have no manuscript evidence for it. We have several Greek manuscripts of Hebrews, but no Hebrew ones. It is almost as if the Hebrew Christians did not care to preserve the original Hebrew text of the Book of Hebrews, but yet they bothered to meticulously preserve the Greek translation in copy after copy for generation after generation. This does not make sense. If the Book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, the Christians would have definitely sought to preserve the original Hebrew text in some way, and we would still have at least one surviving copy today, or at least evidence for it.

Secondly, it is not true that the Hebrews, i.e., Jews, preferred being written to in the Hebrew language. By the time of Jesus, many Jews were more fluent in Greek than in Hebrew. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is recorded to have conversed primarily in Greek. Even today, many Jews around the world cannot read or understand Classical Hebrew. This includes the Jews of Modern Israel who speak Modern Hebrew, which is very different from the Classical Hebrew in which the Hebrew Bible was written. Sure, they might be able to vocalize familiar texts, but they would not be able to translate or understand a Classical Hebrew text given to them on the spot.

Thirdly, the Greek text of the Book of Hebrews suggests strongly that it was an original work, and not a translation of an original Hebrew text. The writing style makes it impossible to get a grammatically sound Hebrew text through reverse translation. Moreover, wherever the writer of Hebrews quotes and alludes from the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), he would not do so from the Hebrew text, but from the popularly used Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible of the time—even where those Greek translations differed significantly from the Hebrew text! Therefore, it is more likely that the Book of Hebrews was written originally in Greek rather than in Hebrew."​

Thanks for the reply Bob. I have much more reading to do on this topic, as I am not fluent in the myriad of arguments. That surround the author and language of the letter to the Hebrews.

You may be right about the language being Koine Greek but I am not sure yet.

In the early church were three traditions regarding the authorship of Hebrews: The Alexandrian tradition supported the Pauline authorship; the African tradition supported the authorship of Barnabas; Rome and the West
supported the idea that it was anonymous. (http://lester.wcbc.edu.Pauline_authorship)