Did Jesus quote from the LXX?

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We hear so often that the LXX was the text quoted by Jesus, but is this true?

What I would suggest, and what my study has indicated to me is that the reason this appears to be the case is due to translating.

The LXX is a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. If Matthew was written in Hebrew as many scholars believe, then some, or all of the New Testament would be a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. Then when you compare the quotes from the Old Testament found in the LXX you are looking at the Greek translation, which could not possibly be identical to the Hebrew, since there is no exact word for word replacement. What you would have is two Greek translations from the Hebrew which would naturally agree one with another, more than they would with the Hebrew.

It is not true that all quotes found in the New Testament agree word for word with the LXX.

The MT agrees far greater with the DSS than does the LXX, and the DSS has been carbon dated to be 300 to 600 years older than any extant LXX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yeshuasavedme

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The Evangelists usually quote the LXX.

Whether Jesus did or not is not something we're going to know. The Evangelists wrote in Greek, not in Jesus' native Aramaic. Did Jesus ever quote Scripture in Greek? I don't know, I would think it more likely that He quoted it in Aramaic and thus was probably quite familiar with Aramaic translations and the Targums.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Evangelists usually quote the LXX.

Whether Jesus did or not is not something we're going to know. The Evangelists wrote in Greek, not in Jesus' native Aramaic. Did Jesus ever quote Scripture in Greek? I don't know, I would think it more likely that He quoted it in Aramaic and thus was probably quite familiar with Aramaic translations and the Targums.

-CryptoLutheran

Who are you calling the Evangelists?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Who are you calling the Evangelists?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The four authors of the Gospels are historically called "the [four] Evangelists". Likewise historically one can refer to the "Third Evangelist" (which would be St. Luke) or to the "Fourth Evangelist" (which would be St. John) etc. Likewise they are often known as "[name] the Evangelist" for example "St. Luke the Evangelist", etc.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Evangelists usually quote the LXX.

Whether Jesus did or not is not something we're going to know. The Evangelists wrote in Greek, not in Jesus' native Aramaic. Did Jesus ever quote Scripture in Greek? I don't know, I would think it more likely that He quoted it in Aramaic and thus was probably quite familiar with Aramaic translations and the Targums.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you offer any proof that they wrote the gospels in Greek?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Do you offer any proof that they wrote the gospels in Greek?

It was the language spoken everywhere throughout the Roman world. Virtually every Christian whether in Jerusalem or Rome spoke and understood Greek, both Jew and Gentile. New Testament manuscripts found written in Latin, Coptic, or Syriac (Aramaic) all demonstrate that they were translated from a Greek source. The Gospels themselves retain several Aramaic phrases which are translated for us by the authors, such as Mark 5:41 where the author writes that Jesus said to the little girl "talitha koumi" and which the author translates into Greek for his audience.

Let's put it this way: In the United States virtually everyone speaks English. Not everyone, but the overwhelming majority, and it's the language which we discuss law, economics, etc. Now, for example, I can go to parts of Louisiana where they speak Creole French. If I were writing something and wanted as large an audience as possible in the USA, would I write in Creole or English?

If someone two thousand years ago wanted to write something and have it understood by as many people as possible, would I write in the language virtually everyone spoke all across the Roman Empire, or would I write it in a language spoken by only a very small portion of the population in a very remote part of the empire and who really only spoke their language amongst themselves?

There's every reason to believe they wrote in Greek and no reason to believe they wrote in any other language.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

mluiesp

Newbie
Apr 7, 2015
48
6
✟9,112.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Do you offer any proof that they wrote the gospels in Greek?

There is no definitive evidence, as we have not found the original manuscripts. But the oldest manuscripts we have, were written in Greek, so I don't see the need to suppose that the original texts were written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin or Persian.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There is the possibility that there may have been a collection of sayings (logion) written in Aramaic; an ancient tradition reported by Papias (c. 100 ~ 120 AD) as recorded in the writings of Eusebius was that prior to writing down his Gospel in Greek, Matthew had originally composed a list of Jesus' teachings or sayings in Aramaic. Similar in some ways to the modern Q Hypothesis, though the Q Hypothesis assumes Marcan priority rather than Matthean priority.

So it's possible that there was a sort of proto-gospel (though it shouldn't be called a gospel since if it existed was only a collection of sayings), but what we have in the New Testament were definitely Greek originals. That's not something serious historians or scholars question or doubt--indeed, as I noted before, examples of the ancient Peshitta demonstrate a reliance on Greek originals.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There's every reason to believe they wrote in Greek and no reason to believe they wrote in any other language.-CryptoLutheran


What you have presented is not sound evidence. It is the beliefs of modern textual critics.

I will present some solid evidence that the Jews, for the most part, did not speak Greek, and thus we have no reasonable expectation that the "whole" New Testament was written in Greek.

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI page 426.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;---"

Josephus made a clear statement that the Jews language was not Greek. Josephus was born 37 AD.

The Bible backs this up in Acts 21:40 and Acts22:2

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Truth is often the most desired, and yet the least appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

Architeuthus

Squid
Apr 29, 2015
540
62
✟16,006.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Then when you compare the quotes from the Old Testament found in the LXX you are looking at the Greek translation, which could not possibly be identical to the Hebrew, since there is no exact word for word replacement. What you would have is two Greek translations from the Hebrew which would naturally agree one with another, more than they would with the Hebrew.

Actually, the opposite would be true. Since there are so many different ways of translating into Greek, an independent translation from the Hebrew would look nothing like the LXX. However, if a verse is word-for-word identical to the LXX, it must have been copied from the LXX.

It is not true that all quotes found in the New Testament agree word for word with the LXX.

Correct. Many of them are, but not all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Architeuthus

Squid
Apr 29, 2015
540
62
✟16,006.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
I will present some solid evidence that the Jews, for the most part, did not speak Greek, and thus we have no reasonable expectation that the "whole" New Testament was written in Greek.

Jews for the most part read Greek, if they read. That's why the LXX was produced in the first place -- most Jews could not read the Scriptures in Hebrew.

The New Testament shows no signs of being translated from anything else, and there is no evidence of any earlier non-Greek gospels (except for the possible list of Sayings in Aramaic mentioned by ViaCrucis).

All the available evidence indicates that the whole New Testament was indeed written in Greek.

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI page 426.

Josephus saying "sorry my Greek isn't perfect" is no evidence of anything. He did write his book in Greek after all.

The Bible backs this up in Acts 21:40 and Acts22:2

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

My translation says that he spoke to them in Aramaic. This is supported by spoken language in the New Testament quoted verbatim, which is Aramaic rather than Hebrew.

Truth is often the most desired, and yet the least appreciated.

Correct.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Hebrew was a dead language only used for religion by the time Jesus came on the scene. He would not have used it much, if at all.

The Masoretic text that many Protestants used to use has errors due to the fact it is not as old a source as the LXX and Targums.

That part of the world was multi-lingual by default, because it was the cross-roads of so many civilizations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Architeuthus

Squid
Apr 29, 2015
540
62
✟16,006.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
The Masoretic text that many Protestants used to use has errors due to the fact it is not as old a source as the LXX and Targums.

This forum seems to be a bit of a Catholic/Protestant battleground.

Most modern Bible translations do actually use the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. This includes Catholic bibles such as the New American Bible. The Masoretic text generally agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and therefore seems to accurately preserve at least one textual tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is true that most modern Bible translators have also consulted the DSS and the LXX, and may follow either of those if the Masoretic text seems problematic (or, as in the case of the Deuterocanonical books, there is no Hebrew text). Deviation from the Masoretic text is generally footnoted.

Nobody uses the Vulgate as a primary source any longer, as far as I know, and only Orthodox translations use the LXX as the primary source (although even the Orthodox Study Bible relies partly on the Masoretic text).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
What you have presented is not sound evidence. It is the beliefs of modern textual critics.

I will present some solid evidence that the Jews, for the most part, did not speak Greek, and thus we have no reasonable expectation that the "whole" New Testament was written in Greek.

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI page 426.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;---"

Josephus made a clear statement that the Jews language was not Greek. Josephus was born 37 AD.
There's greek and there's greek.

The NT isn't in the literary greek of academic discourse, but the rough and ready Koine Greek that's the Lingua Franca of that world.

The Bible backs this up in Acts 21:40 and Acts22:2

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Code switching.

When you speak multiple languages you use the choice of language to establish the kind of relationship you want with your conversational partners.

jews in Palestine widely spoke Aramaic (not Biblical Hebrew) and koine Greek. Outside of Palestine some, like migrants everywhere, retain their cultural language but most adopted the Lingua Franca.

The reality is that all the evidence points to all four gospels having been written in koine Greek. There is nothing pointing to any of them being written in aramaic let alone Hebrew.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
We hear so often that the LXX was the text quoted by Jesus, but is this true?

What I would suggest, and what my study has indicated to me is that the reason this appears to be the case is due to translating.

The LXX is a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. If Matthew was written in Hebrew as many scholars believe, then some, or all of the New Testament would be a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. Then when you compare the quotes from the Old Testament found in the LXX you are looking at the Greek translation, which could not possibly be identical to the Hebrew, since there is no exact word for word replacement. What you would have is two Greek translations from the Hebrew which would naturally agree one with another, more than they would with the Hebrew.

It is not true that all quotes found in the New Testament agree word for word with the LXX.

The MT agrees far greater with the DSS than does the LXX, and the DSS has been carbon dated to be 300 to 600 years older than any extant LXX.
Jesus probably spoke generally in aramaic.
His words are then given in Greek.
Regardless of which text and language he quoted from it's natural that those quoting him in Greek would use the familiar greek translation rather than translating his Aramaic themselves. So we don't really know.
We do know that the LXX was good enough for the NT authors.

To find out for jesus we would need a text sufficiently different in the two traditions so that he could only be quoting from one of them. But even then it wouldn't help if it's a divergence that happened later.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the opposite would be true. Since there are so many different ways of translating into Greek, an independent translation from the Hebrew would look nothing like the LXX. However, if a verse is word-for-word identical to the LXX, it must have been copied from the LXX.



Correct. Many of them are, but not all.

As I find more and more evidence that points to many of the original autographs as having been written in Hebrew a thought occurred to me. If many of the books had been written in Hebrew, than the Greek scribes would have naturally turned to their Septuagint when translating "quoted scripture" from the New Testament. This would account for the correlation between the Septuagint and the New Testament Text.

As this would be poison to the textual critics they would never proffer this idea.

I must say that however it came about, it is amazing just how accurate these manuscripts are after two thousand or more years. We can trust our Bibles.
 
Upvote 0

Architeuthus

Squid
Apr 29, 2015
540
62
✟16,006.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
As I find more and more evidence that points to many of the original autographs as having been written in Hebrew

There is not a single piece of evidence suggesting that the original autographs were written in Hebrew, and plenty of evidence that the entire New Testament was written in Greek.

For a start, most of the books were either written outside Palestine, or written specifically to Jews and Gentiles who lived outside Palestine – most of the intended readers of the New Testament read Greek, but not Hebrew. Even within Palestine, very few Jews read Hebrew.

For another, there are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament – not a single one! For a third, nothing about the text suggests it's a translation. For a fourth, when non-Greek words occur (like "Talitha koum"), they're Aramaic, not Hebrew.

If many of the books had been written in Hebrew, than the Greek scribes would have naturally turned to their Septuagint when translating "quoted scripture" from the New Testament.

That doesn't quite follow; sometimes the New Testament authors translated from the Hebrew to the Greek in their own words (not quoting the LXX), and sometimes they quote the LXX verbatim.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
As I find more and more evidence that points to many of the original autographs as having been written in Hebrew a thought occurred to me. If many of the books had been written in Hebrew, than the Greek scribes would have naturally turned to their Septuagint when translating "quoted scripture" from the New Testament. This would account for the correlation between the Septuagint and the New Testament Text.

That's an improbable theory and goes against the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor). Also, it implies the scribes that copied down the New Testament were intentionally dishonest in their translations, which is very impious considering the Greek texts are some of the most widespread in the Christian world throughout time.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That doesn't quite follow; sometimes the New Testament authors translated from the Hebrew to the Greek in their own words (not quoting the LXX), and sometimes they quote the LXX verbatim.

I may just be speculating: It's also possible that instead of doing the translation themselves they were relying on other Greek translations available at the time, or that there were variant readings of the LXX.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thankfulttt

Member
Oct 26, 2014
466
42
✟11,502.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is not a single piece of evidence suggesting that the original autographs were written in Hebrew, and plenty of evidence that the entire New Testament was written in Greek.

For a start, most of the books were either written outside Palestine, or written specifically to Jews and Gentiles who lived outside Palestine – most of the intended readers of the New Testament read Greek, but not Hebrew. Even within Palestine, very few Jews read Hebrew.

For another, there are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament – not a single one! For a third, nothing about the text suggests it's a translation. For a fourth, when non-Greek words occur (like "Talitha koum"), they're Aramaic, not Hebrew.



That doesn't quite follow; sometimes the New Testament authors translated from the Hebrew to the Greek in their own words (not quoting the LXX), and sometimes they quote the LXX verbatim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; 175-185 AD

" Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect," (On the Composition of Mark and Matthew, citing Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor; lived ca. 60-130 AD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea 260-340 AD

But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." . (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome 347 – 420 AD said,

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene. (Illustrious Men, chapter three.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josephus (37 AD-100 AD)said,

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;---"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0