The "The Early Church Used the Greek O.T." thread

[Musa80]

If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, it's good enough for me.

QFT

 

[MariaRegina]

Originally Posted by katherine2001

If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, it's good enough for me.
​

QFT

I third that.

 

[ebia]

Originally Posted by katherine2001

If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, it's good enough for me.

​

It's an old line but a good one. Except it would carry more weight if we actually knew it was the version Jesus used. We don't know that. We know the New Testament authors used it, but that's about all we can say for sure.

 

[Brennin]

More accurate to what?

We have three main streams available - Masoritic (Hebrew), LXX (Greek) and that from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew) and the two Hebrew texts are more similar to each other than either is to the LXX which points towards the Hebrew texts generally being more accurate to the original. Also some of the changes in the LXX definitely look like later changes as ideas develop - eg some of the handful of texts that hint at resurrection of the dead in the Hebrew become much clearer references to that in the LXX. That makes no sense unless the the Hebrew represents the original and the Greek later development.

I don't know about that.

 

[ebia]

I don't know about that.

What point do you think is doubtful and why?

 

[wayseer]

Actually the Masoritic text was written from the XXL. Jews did not posses a Hebrew Bible in their own language until after the XXL appeared. So to argue that the Hebrew is more accurate than the XXL is a good one but is highly questionable because Greek was the common language of the Middle East regardless of ethnicity around 300 BCE.

There were Hebrew texts in circulation but these were various scrolls and did not form anything like a complete set of writings. It was from these texts that the scholars wrote in Koine Greek - the language of the street - their Bible (Septuagint). It was almost 1000 years later when the Bible was finally translated into Hebrew. So for anyone to argue that the Bible is an accurate translation after having been passed through than many hands is a bit of a stretch.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If memory serves... all the Hebrew texts were destroyed when the Jews were led into Babylonian captivity. Thus the reason for calling together the seventy to create the LXX to begin with.

Are we ignoring that the Jews themselves thought it a miracle that there was no discrepancy among any of the seventy writers of the LXX?

Forgive me...

 

[Brennin]

What point do you think is doubtful and why?

Your claim that the Masoretic text is more authentic since it aligns more closely with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The DSS also tell us some things concerning the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Biblical fragments have been found in the Qumran caves, which have a Hebrew text that is closer to the LXX than to the MT. This tells us that around the turn of the century there were various Hebrew texts in existence, and the LXX may have come from "a different Hebrew Text belonging to what we may call the Proto-Septuagint family".42 This would explain some of the differences between the MT and the LXX.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls" by William Priestly


The result is that it is impossible to reconstruct the original version of the Septuagint. Because the Masoretic text has a similar editorial
history, we must conclude that we can not know the original wording of the books of the Jewish Bible. The texts of the Dead Sea scrolls are sometimes closer to the Masoretic tradition, and sometimes closer to the Septuagint; therefeore, they can not be used to decide which version is better.
It should, however, be stressed that the differences are usually not very large.

Septuagint

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't know about that.

I don't either.

Yes, the Hebrew texts are older than the Greek ones.

However, I do not necessarily accept the views of those who promulgate the classic view of the "evolution" of the "religion of the Jews".

No, the Jews were not "religious geniuses" (a sneaky concept revealing an underlying anti-Semitic assumption) constructing the perfect religion over time. The Hebrew Scriptures are revelation from God in my book.

The subject of resurrection from the dead did not develope over time, it was there all along, as clearly early as Job.

That during the Roman period the doctrine was disputed by liberal Jews, the Saduccees says nothing to me as to when the belief came about; its an interesting historical oddity, but sheds no light on the evolution of Judaism. Is apostasy evolution or devolution?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually the Masoritic text was written from the XXL. Jews did not posses a Hebrew Bible in their own language until after the XXL appeared. So to argue that the Hebrew is more accurate than the XXL is a good one but is highly questionable because Greek was the common language of the Middle East regardless of ethnicity around 300 BCE.

There were Hebrew texts in circulation but these were various scrolls and did not form anything like a complete set of writings. It was from these texts that the scholars wrote in Koine Greek - the language of the street - their Bible (Septuagint). It was almost 1000 years later when the Bible was finally translated into Hebrew. So for anyone to argue that the Bible is an accurate translation after having been passed through than many hands is a bit of a stretch.

You should state that this view of yours is based upon your faith in the tradition of your Church and not upon history.

 

[SummaScriptura]

If memory serves... all the Hebrew texts were destroyed when the Jews were led into Babylonian captivity. Thus the reason for calling together the seventy to create the LXX to begin with.

Are we ignoring that the Jews themselves thought it a miracle that there was no discrepancy among any of the seventy writers of the LXX?

Forgive me...

You are conflating two stories and revising one. Are you now stating the LXX is not a translation?

King Ptolemy of Egypt commissioned the translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek some 3 centuries before Christ. Do you really think the Jews would wait another 300 years after Babylon to "restore" their Scriptures? Maybe so, I mean after all Obama wrote the Gettysburg Address, right?

The "lost" Hebrew Scriptures of an earlier time were restored during Ezra's era.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The LXX is a translation... but from memory... and parts of texts.

Forgive me...

 

[cyberlizard]

If memory serves... all the Hebrew texts were destroyed when the Jews were led into Babylonian captivity. Thus the reason for calling together the seventy to create the LXX to begin with.

Are we ignoring that the Jews themselves thought it a miracle that there was no discrepancy among any of the seventy writers of the LXX?

Forgive me...

if the hebrew texts were destroyed when they were led into captivity, what did they use as the basis for the translation.

as to what the Jews thought about the LXX, they also declared the day it was translated into Greek was a 'dark day', a day 'darkness fell over the world'. (at least so says the Talmud).



Steve

 

[Athanasias]

Christ and the apostles were familiar with and used the LXX Septuagint as their scripture as Christ quotes from it over 300 times as opposed to the Hebrew OT scripture which Christ quotes only about 50 times.

 

[ebia]

Christ and the apostles were familiar with and used the LXX Septuagint as their scripture as Christ quotes from it over 300 times as opposed to the Hebrew OT scripture which Christ quotes only about 50 times.

Lets be clear - the New Testament quotations are largely from the LXX where its possible to tell. We don't know which version Jesus actually quoted from when he spoke.

 

[wayseer]

You should state that this view of yours is based upon your faith in the tradition of your Church and not upon history.

Actually it is based on history. My faith in the Church has been shattered many years ago.

It seems to me lots of other people are relying on faith when talking about translations and which is what.

The Hebrew texts were scattered during the Babylonian invasion. Those of high status were taken into exile which meant that scribes and the scholars were shunted off to various places. In the ensuring confusion the 'story' had to be re-invented - if there was any such 'story' in the first place. There is much debate amongst scholars just how all this came together but it seems clear that it was in Alexandria, where many of the diaspora Jews move to escape the conflict further north, where the definitive work took place to collect and write the Bible - in Greek.

 

[Musa80]

as to what the Jews thought about the LXX, they also declared the day it was translated into Greek was a 'dark day', a day 'darkness fell over the world'. (at least so says the Talmud).

An attitude which itself speaks to why the Jews several decades after the crucifixion tossed large chunks of their own scripture and changed others.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually it is based on history. My faith in the Church has been shattered many years ago.

It seems to me lots of other people are relying on faith when talking about translations and which is what.

The Hebrew texts were scattered during the Babylonian invasion. Those of high status were taken into exile which meant that scribes and the scholars were shunted off to various places. In the ensuring confusion the 'story' had to be re-invented - if there was any such 'story' in the first place. There is much debate amongst scholars just how all this came together but it seems clear that it was in Alexandria, where many of the diaspora Jews move to escape the conflict further north, where the definitive work took place to collect and write the Bible - in Greek.

So, when Daniel was reading from Jeremiah in Babylon, as his book says, where did that come from? The LXX? Lol!

 

[wayseer]

So, when Daniel was reading from Jeremiah in Babylon, as his book says, where did that come from? The LXX? Lol!

Actually, we know the book of Daniel was written about 200 BCE, well after the Babylonian experience. So, Yes, if anyone identified as Daniel ever lived, he would have been reading, if he could read, the XXL.

 

[Athanasias]

Lets be clear - the New Testament quotations are largely from the LXX where its possible to tell. We don't know which version Jesus actually quoted from when he spoke.

Nope. I have actually heard Scripture scholars say that the Septuagint was the translation that Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from most often.