A Proof for the "Septuagent" in the NT? Input appreciated

[JRKH]

I have been thinking about this some and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from others to see if my “logic” holds up.

Our Protestant Brothers will often use this 2 Timothy verse in discussions of Sola Scriptura.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Of course we know that Paul can only be refering to the OT in this passage since the NT hadn’t been assembled or even fully written yet.
So How can we know that He is refering to the “Greek” and not the “Hebrew” OT?
My belief it is because of where Paul Traveled and established Churches that we can know that it is the larger, Greek OT to which he refers.
When he traveled to Corinth, Galatia, Rome, Ephesus etc., what OT was likely in use in these “Greek” speaking areas?
When he was inviting the Gentiles to join the Church what OT would they be able to read and study upon?
In all likelyhood it would be the Greek OT - The Sepuigent.
Thus when Paul tells Timothy that “ALL Scripture is given of God…”, he is refering to the larger, Greek OT and not to the smaller “Hebrew” OT determined later by the Jewish Leadership.

Comments?

Peace
James

 

[ziapueblo]

I have been thinking about this some and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from others to see if my “logic” holds up.

Our Protestant Brothers will often use this 2 Timothy verse in discussions of Sola Scriptura.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Of course we know that Paul can only be refering to the OT in this passage since the NT hadn’t been assembled or even fully written yet.
So How can we know that He is refering to the “Greek” and not the “Hebrew” OT?
My belief it is because of where Paul Traveled and established Churches that we can know that it is the larger, Greek OT to which he refers.
When he traveled to Corinth, Galatia, Rome, Ephesus etc., what OT was likely in use in these “Greek” speaking areas?
When he was inviting the Gentiles to join the Church what OT would they be able to read and study upon?
In all likelyhood it would be the Greek OT - The Sepuigent.
Thus when Paul tells Timothy that “ALL Scripture is given of God…”, he is refering to the larger, Greek OT and not to the smaller “Hebrew” OT determined later by the Jewish Leadership.

Comments?

Peace
James

According to John Salza of Scripture Catholic, 2/3 of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Beginning Apologetics series volume six I believe refers to two Protestant authors who write in their book that the Septuagint is actually quoted almost 90% of the time. I have the book at home but am at work right now. I will send you the info if you like so that you can look at that source.

 

[JRKH]

According to John Salza of Scripture Catholic, 2/3 of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Beginning Apologetics series volume six I believe refers to two Protestant authors who write in their book that the Septuagint is actually quoted almost 90% of the time. I have the book at home but am at work right now. I will send you the info if you like so that you can look at that source.

Thanks.
I have heard this before but feel that, in a discussion re: old testiment books, usually the persons in the discussion are not that up on specific translations etc.
My idea in the OP is that Paul and Timothy, by being so widely travelled, would have been using the Septuagint for the most part. Thus, Paul’s reference to “All Scripture” would be a de-facto endorsement of this OT.

Peace
James

 

[Spirithound]

I have been thinking about this some and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from others to see if my “logic” holds up.

So How can we know that He is refering to the “Greek” and not the “Hebrew” OT?
My belief it is because of where Paul Traveled and established Churches that we can know that it is the larger, Greek OT to which he refers.

Hi James,
I certainly won’t say you’re wrong, because I do believe that the LXX was the version in usage, but it is very common in the world to be bilingual or even trilingual, particularly for religious purposes.

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
I certainly won’t say you’re wrong, because I do believe that the LXX was the version in usage, but it is very common in the world to be bilingual or even trilingual, particularly for religious purposes.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps I didn’t express my point well enough. Let me try to clarify.

1. Paul travelled far and wide on his missionary journeys to many Greek speaking countries.
2. The most widely used OT outside of Isreal was the Septuigent
3. Paul tells Timothy that ALL Scripture is useful
4. therefore ALL must include the deuterocanonicals.

Does that help?

Peace
James

 

[Spirithound]

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps I didn’t express my point well enough. Let me try to clarify.

1. Paul travelled far and wide on his missionary journeys to many Greek speaking countries.
2. The most widely used OT outside of Isreal was the Septuigent
3. Paul tells Timothy that ALL Scripture is useful
4. therefore ALL must include the deuterocanonicals.

Does that help?

Peace
James

The problem is that a Protestant would say that those Greek-speaking Jews were wrong to use the Septuagint because the deuterocanonicals aren’t Scripture.

 

[JRKH]

The problem is that a Protestant would say that those Greek-speaking Jews were wrong to use the Septuagint because the deuterocanonicals aren’t Scripture.

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback.

My response would be to point out that, since the OT Canon had not been closed by the Jews until well after the Writing of Pauls Letters, What Proof is there that:
a) The Hellenistic Jews, including their teachers, could have or should have known there was a problem with the Septuigent.
b) What evidence is there that Paul considered the Septuigent to be flawed by including the Deuteros.

Since Paul clearly declares “ALL Scripture” and, at the time, the Septuigent was widely accepted as Scripture in the places Paul Preached it seems unlikely that Paul would have used the term ALL if He saw problems with any of the books.

 

[CalCatholic]

The problem is that a Protestant would say that those Greek-speaking Jews were wrong to use the Septuagint because the deuterocanonicals aren’t Scripture.

Those Greek speaking Jews and later Gentiles are what the Christian Church of the first cetury was made up of. It is silly to say that they were wrong in using the Septuagint, it was their Bible, inspired by God. By the end of the first century, the majority of the Church spoke Greek, hence why the NT is written entirely in Greek. The Septuagint was their ‘Scriptures’ with the DeuteroCanonical books included, that is history.

 

[DD2007]

The problem is that a Protestant would say that those Greek-speaking Jews were wrong to use the Septuagint because the deuterocanonicals aren’t Scripture.

When the Holy Family was in Egypt, the synagoge they must have attended would have read from the septuagint.

Has this ever been brought up? Perhaps Christ himself preferred the septuagint?

 

[JRKH]

**When the Holy Family was in Egypt, the synagoge they must have attended would have read from the septuagint. **

Has this ever been brought up? Perhaps Christ himself preferred the septuagint?

Very interesting point!! Hadn’t thought of that.

There seems to be much evidence that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, though I am not enough of a scholar to be able to discuss this intelligently.
Thus my thought on Paul’s quote, which is so dear to the Sola Scripturist apologetic - that, regardless of all other arguments, the Septuagint was in Wide use and the OT had not been “Closed” yet and Paul Does Say ALL Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[Robbinson]

Those Greek speaking Jews and later Gentiles are what the Christian Church of the first cetury was made up of. It is silly to say that they were wrong in using the Septuagint, it was their Bible, inspired by God. By the end of the first century, the majority of the Church spoke Greek, hence why the NT is written entirely in Greek. The Septuagint was their ‘Scriptures’ with the DeuteroCanonical books included, that is history.

Exactly - this is well said. In fact, the Jewish cannon was not officially established to exclude the DeuteroCanonical books until well after the establishment of Christianity. At that time, Christianity was still a sect of Judaism and its not hard to imagine that the determination to reject the Septuagent books in favor of the Palestinian cannon was a way of distancing themselves from the Christian bretheren. In fact, Jews to date still read with respect and interest the DeuteroCanonical books (though don’t accord them the authority of scripture). The holiday of Chanakuah is recorded nowhere in the Old Testatament (other than in Macabees 1 and 2). It is, of course, recorded in the New Testatment, again suggesting that the New Testatment authors were familiar with,and referring to, the Septuagent Old Testament.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[DianJo]

Concerning the “closed canon” of Jewish scripture and the "council of Jamnia:

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
This is a very interesting article and well worth a read. I’m not even sure if the Jews have ever “closed” their canon. If anyone knows, please let us know.

Here’s one small section of the article:

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:

“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a “closed canon” of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did.

This uncertainty continued well into the second century. The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.

Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).