Any modern bible translation use the Septuagint for ot? Not the masoretic text

[Duane1966]

The thing is, the gospels are not tape recordings of Jesus speaking. I highly doubt the NT authors jotted down every actual bit of dialogue Jesus and the apostles literally spoke years ago word-for-word. What we only have are the writings of people who knew Jesus, and people who knew people who knew Jesus, written in a language probably different from what Jesus would have spoken in everyday life (well, while it’s true Greek was widespread at a certain level at the time, it’s not like it was His first language and that He spoke it regularly, especially if He was speaking to village peasants in the Galilee) - so that’s two to three degrees of separation. Add to that the fact that Jesus did not necessarily have to quote the Greek version, but the Hebrew text underlying that translation.

And you’re kinda oversimplifying here. It’s true most scriptural allusions or quotations in the NT are from the Septuagint, but some NT authors provide a quotation or allusion that differs from the Septuagint text: even habitual Septuagint users will at times use a different translation of the passage if that proved to be more suitable to their needs (i.e. when they thought it fits their interpretation more).

Again from link I posted above. (Part 1)

But what about Greek? Says Fitzmyer:“Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander’s conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings” (p.59).A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being “Hellenists.” The King James Version says, “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration” (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or “Greeks”? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, ** in whose synagogues** Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: “And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . .” The “Grecians” or “Hellenists” were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem.Says Fitzmyer:“Such Hellenistai may have spoken very little, if any, Hebrew or Aramaic. This is suggested by a reference in Philippians 3:5 where Paul stoutly refers to himself as ‘a Hebrew of the Hebrews.’ Paul also spoke Greek. Thus Hellinistai as C. F. D. Moule has suggested probably is the designation of those Jerusalem Jews or Jewish Christians who habitually spoke only Greek (and for that reason were more affected by Hellenistic culture), whereas Hebraioi designated those Greek-speaking Jews and Jewish Christians who also Apple a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, which they normally used” (ibid., p.60).

 

[Duane1966]

(Part 2)

What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a “second language”?"The answer is almost certainly yes. The more difficult question, however, is whether he taught in Greek. Are any of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved for us only in Greek nevertheless in the original language in which he uttered them?"That Aramaic was the language Jesus normally used for both conversation and teaching seems clear. Most New Testament scholars would agree with this. But did he also speak Greek? The evidence already recounted for the use of Greek in first-century Palestine provides the background for an answer to this question. But there are more specific indi- cations in the Gospels themselves.“All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate” (p.61).Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a “Greek” (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek.Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus” (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matt.4:15) – a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. Declares Fitzmyer:"Moreover, these specific instances in which Jesus apparently spoke Greek are consistent with his Galilean background. In Matthew 4;15, this area is referred to as ‘Galilee of the Gentiles.’ Growing up and living in this area, Jesus would have had to speak some Greek. Nazareth was a mere hour’s walk to Sepphoris and in the vicinity of other cities of the Decapolis. Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, was built by Herod Antipas; the population there, too, was far more bilingual than in Jerusalem.“Coming from such an area, JESUS would NO DOUBT HAVE SHARED THIS DOUBLE LINGUISTIC HERITAGE. Reared in an area where many inhabitants were GREEK- SPEAKING GENTILES, Jesus, the ‘carpenter’ (tekon, Mark 6:3), like Joseph, his foster- father (Matthew 13:55), would have had to deal with them in GREEK. Jesus was not an illiterate peasant and did not come from the lowest stratum of Palestinian society; he was a skilled craftsman. He is said to have had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:15). He would naturally have conducted business in Greek with gentiles in Nazareth and neighboring Sepphoris” (ibid.).Did Jesus also, therefore, teach in Greek? Were many of His parables and saying actually uttered in the Greek language?If the answer is yes, as A. W. Argyle says, “We may have direct access to the original utterances of our Lord and not only to a translation of them.”

 

[lindahuntASD]

leptoslim Seit dem Planeten begann, haben die Menschen nie aufgehört, zu konsumieren. Für eine lange Zeit haben wir alle Verschlucken viel Formen der Nahrung, sowie für die Jahre haben wir unsere Doppelpunkte ohne jede Rücksicht erhalten. Bevor das Abfallmaterial sind in unserem Körper in jeder Lebensmittel entfernten wir verdauen, aber auch, dass die Menschen essen, kann Doppelpunkt das letzte Ende. Im Laufe der Zeit könnte dies zu entwickeln, und wird schließlich zu Problemen führen. Verunreinigungen können in der Doppelpunkt gespeichert werden, und es könnte viel Zerstörung wie Malignomen, die Darmkrebs verursacht, wenn diese halblinker erstellen. Anzeigen, was wir essen, ist nicht wirklich genug, und wir alle müssen nach unserer Doppelpunkt aus, in ein anderes oder in eine Richtung.
Die Durchführung einer umfassenden Colon Cleanse wird Ihr System einer leptoslim Vielzahl von Toxinen, die ermöglichen, die Haut scheinen besser, Aufräum Akne, Ihnen mehr Vitalität, aktivieren Sie den menschlichen Körper, Nahrung zu verdauen und auch Sie mit mehr Ausdauer im Raum zu löschen. Ja, das aus der Beseitigung der unglaublich widerlichen Schlämme, die in Ihrem Doppelpunkt gespeichert wird.

For More Info>>>>>>> http://leptoslimorder.tumblr.com/

 

[CalCatholic]

leptoslim Seit dem Planeten begann, haben die Menschen nie aufgehört, zu konsumieren. Für eine lange Zeit haben wir alle Verschlucken viel Formen der Nahrung, sowie für die Jahre haben wir unsere Doppelpunkte ohne jede Rücksicht erhalten. Bevor das Abfallmaterial sind in unserem Körper in jeder Lebensmittel entfernten wir verdauen, aber auch, dass die Menschen essen, kann Doppelpunkt das letzte Ende. Im Laufe der Zeit könnte dies zu entwickeln, und wird schließlich zu Problemen führen. Verunreinigungen können in der Doppelpunkt gespeichert werden, und es könnte viel Zerstörung wie Malignomen, die Darmkrebs verursacht, wenn diese halblinker erstellen. Anzeigen, was wir essen, ist nicht wirklich genug, und wir alle müssen nach unserer Doppelpunkt aus, in ein anderes oder in eine Richtung.
Die Durchführung einer umfassenden Colon Cleanse wird Ihr System einer leptoslim Vielzahl von Toxinen, die ermöglichen, die Haut scheinen besser, Aufräum Akne, Ihnen mehr Vitalität, aktivieren Sie den menschlichen Körper, Nahrung zu verdauen und auch Sie mit mehr Ausdauer im Raum zu löschen. Ja, das aus der Beseitigung der unglaublich widerlichen Schlämme, die in Ihrem Doppelpunkt gespeichert wird.

For More Info>>>>>>> leptoslimorder.tumblr.com/

Reported!

 

[patrick457]

Duane, the issue is not so much whether Greek was a common language in Palestine or Jesus could speak Greek or not. The issue is whether all of the dialogues as written in the gospels - which are in Greek - occurred word-for-word as they are written. What I’m saying is, rather than say “Jesus quoted the Septuagint,” a more accurate thing to say is “the evangelists mostly used the Septuagint (not always though - there are a few exceptions).” That’s the only thing we’re sure about, because it’s right there.

This may sound a bit philosophical, but we don’t have books or tapes or videos made by Jesus Himself, so how can one say “Jesus used the Septuagint” if we’ve even never hear Him speak personally? The only way we’ll know for sure is to be right there when those events happened, and hear the words straight out of Jesus’ mouth. As it stands, all we have are the writings left by people who knew Jesus (and people who knew them). They didn’t have tape recorders in those days, so it’s not like they were able to have an accurate transcription of His speeches. They could get the gist of what He said, but I highly doubt they managed to write down all the words He would have used, exactly as He said them.

(Before somebody brings this up: yes, I know people’s memories back then are much stronger than ours - especially in that traditionally oral culture - but that’s beside the point. The human mind doesn’t work like a video recorder that plays back an exact replica of events remembered, contrary to popular belief. Memories are actually reconstructed like a puzzle rather than played back like a video each time we recall them. And inevitably there’s going to be some ‘rearrangement’ along the way; some bits are lost, and some ‘foreign’ bits - which properly don’t ‘belong’ there - will be added. In fact, as per some studies, you’re lucky if even 50% of your memories actually represent exactly what happened. Some people will use expressions like, “I remember clearly that…” or “I remember it just like yesterday,” but those actually aren’t completely true. Inevitably one’s ‘memory’ of a given event is just our mind’s reconstruction of bits and pieces, filtered through our current state. Because our view of the world is constantly changing everyday, our minds don’t reconstruct those memories perfectly. Some people have exceptional memories and can ‘reconstruct’ things better than others, but even their recollections fall short of 100%. There’s even the idea of our brains implanting 'false memories. That may kinda sound distressing to some people, but that’s just how our brain works; nothing wrong there, since there’s nothing we can do.)

 

[Duane1966]

Duane, the issue is not so much whether Greek was a common language in Palestine or Jesus could speak Greek or not. The issue is whether all of the dialogues as written in the gospels - which are in Greek - occurred word-for-word as they are written. What I’m saying is, rather than say “Jesus quoted the Septuagint,” a more accurate thing to say is “the evangelists mostly used the Septuagint (not always though - there are a few exceptions).” That’s the only thing we’re sure about, because it’s right there.

This may sound a bit philosophical, but we don’t have books or tapes or videos made by Jesus Himself, so how can one say “Jesus used the Septuagint” if we’ve even never hear Him speak personally? The only way we’ll know for sure is to be right there when those events happened, and hear the words straight out of Jesus’ mouth. As it stands, all we have are the writings left by people who knew Jesus (and people who knew them). They didn’t have tape recorders in those days, so it’s not like they were able to have an accurate transcription of His speeches. They could get the gist of what He said, but I highly doubt they managed to write down all the words He would have used, exactly as He said them.

(Before somebody brings this up: yes, I know people’s memories back then are much stronger than ours - especially in that traditionally oral culture - but that’s beside the point. The human mind doesn’t work like a video recorder that plays back an exact replica of events remembered, contrary to popular belief. Memories are actually reconstructed like a puzzle rather than played back like a video each time we recall them. And inevitably there’s going to be some ‘rearrangement’ along the way; some bits are lost, and some ‘foreign’ bits - which properly don’t ‘belong’ there - will be added. In fact, as per some studies, you’re lucky if even 50% of your memories actually represent exactly what happened. Some people will use expressions like, “I remember clearly that…” or “I remember it just like yesterday,” but those actually aren’t completely true. Inevitably one’s ‘memory’ of a given event is just our mind’s reconstruction of bits and pieces, filtered through our current state. Because our view of the world is constantly changing everyday, our minds don’t reconstruct those memories perfectly. Some people have exceptional memories and can ‘reconstruct’ things better than others, but even their recollections fall short of 100%. There’s even the idea of our brains implanting 'false memories. That may kinda sound distressing to some people, but that’s just how our brain works; nothing wrong there, since there’s nothing we can do.)

I never disagreed with you on these points. My issue is when people say there is no way that Jesus knew the Septuagint, or that He only knew the Masoretic text. I think we will find that He knew and quoted from both.

 

[patrick457]

I never disagreed with you on these points. My issue is when people say there is no way that Jesus knew the Septuagint, or that He only knew the Masoretic text. I think we will find that He knew and quoted from both.

This is actually what I’m trying to say. The only way we can be sure that Jesus quoted the Septuagint is if we suppose that all the dialogues in the gospels occurred as they are written word-for-word. (And of course, that’s supposing that He did speak Greek in those occasions He quoted scripture.) He could have known the Greek Septuagint and one could imagine that He may have used it on a few occasions, but that’s all just speculation, because the gospels were neither written by Jesus Himself nor are they tape recordings that precisely recorded every syllable that came out of Jesus’ mouth in the original language. The only thing we can glean from the data is that the disciples of Jesus and their disciples - the ones who wrote the books of the NT in Greek - used the Greek Septuagint.

 

[ericc]

This is actually what I’m trying to say. The only way we can be sure that Jesus quoted the Septuagint is if we suppose that all the dialogues in the gospels occurred as they are written word-for-word. (And of course, that’s supposing that He did speak Greek in those occasions He quoted scripture.) He could have known the Greek Septuagint and one could imagine that He may have used it on a few occasions, but that’s all just speculation, because the gospels were neither written by Jesus Himself nor are they tape recordings that precisely recorded every syllable that came out of Jesus’ mouth in the original language. The only thing we can glean from the data is that the disciples of Jesus and their disciples - the ones who wrote the books of the NT in Greek - used the Greek Septuagint.

Since it is confirmed that the writers of NT were quoting LXX, why should we abandon the LXX? We do have sufficient evidence to identify that the Masoretic Text (MT) contains material errors and omissions, so why do we continue to use a source that is flawed and seen to be biased?

For example, Acts 7:14 Jacob’s headcount is numbered at 75. This agrees with the LXX Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. The MT translation put it at 70. The MT had a missing verse in Psalm 145 vs the LXX. The Dead Sea Scroll ties in with the LXX. I am not overly concerned when various versions uses words although different but similar in substance. However, when a purported Word of God starts to display wrong maths, missing verse, the credibility of that version is in question. So today my Ignatius RSV version has a maths discrepancy between Acts 7:14 and the OT Genesis and Exodus account and opening myself for target practice by atheists and Muslims. Luckily Psalm 145 has been corrected with the missing verse. I am sure there are other discrepancies and anyone diligent enough would accumulate sufficient bullets to use that to shoot us with.

Modern Jews claim that the MT source documents came from the Great Assembly and that it doesn’t contain the deuterocanons. However, Ethiopian Jews canon include the deuterocanon books of Sirach, Tobit, Judith and Baruch. Since, the LXX was widely accepted by the Jews for at least 200 yrs BC, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of its contents prior to the rise of Christianity. There was no record that the contents were disputed other than the general dispute between Sadducees/Pharisees. If Ethiopian Jews are indeed from one of the lost tribes, then their canon lends weight that the MT canon has been shortchanged. It would be interesting to see whether the Ethiopic version has an anti-Christian bias or whether it is a faithful record. I would love to put it side-by-side with the LXX and MT. If anyone has an English version of that, please share.

Jesus and Jews celebrate Hanukkah, a Jewish festival that commemorates the purification and rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus. Yet, the MT excludes Maccabees as divine-inspired. That is strange celebrating a festival that is not God-inspired.

Disregarding the politics behind the choice of MT, I failed to see why Christians should not opt for the LXX version as our faith was based on that version instead of settling for a version that came in after Christianity has been well established and loaded with a Christianity neutralizing angle.

 

[patrick457]

My two cents. This is going to be quite long, so please bear with me.

First off, I think the problem stems when we think of textual transmission in, I don’t know how to put it, too narrow terms. In other words, you imagine a ‘single’ original text (what scholars would call, the Ur-text), from which variants sprung up. But that doesn’t seem to be the case with the books of the Bible, especially the Old Testament books: on the contrary, it would seem that even from early on, you had multiple, different ‘original’ versions of the same work circulating. Even if there was an Ur-text - which we could define as the final product which incorporated the last recognizable literary editing of the book - that still doesn’t preclude the existence of say, earlier editions of the same book, so there were, even then, multiple ‘original’ versions.

I have three particular examples:

1.) The Greek version of Jeremiah is quite famous for being quite different than the Masoretic (MT) version of the book: it is much shorter (about one-sixth shorter than the MT), and the order of the text is different in places. (One of the Jeremiah manuscripts found in Qumran - but not the oldest manuscript of Jeremiah found there - agree with the Greek version.) Here’s the thing: it is thought by scholars that the Hebrew text which was used as the base for Greek Jeremiah actually represents an earlier version of the work, while the MT Jeremiah represents an expanded, ‘final’ version of the text. So in this case, you had two stages of the same text floating around. (For the record, the relationship between Greek Ezekiel and MT Ezekiel is quite the same as Jeremiah: the Greek version is shorter - about 4 to 5 percent shorter than the MT - and places some material differently.*)

2.) The second example I’m sure more people will be familiar with is the Greek Daniel and Esther. In this case, it would seem that the shorter MT Daniel and Esther is the earlier version, while the Greek versions are later expansions. (For the record, all the Daniel manuscripts in Qumran have the shorter text; no manuscript of Esther is found there.) So in this is similar to (1), but in this case, the earlier, shorter versions became the Jewish standard instead of the later, expanded ones (which could have been more diaspora-only versions).

Speaking of which, for Daniel at least, you have two Greek versions: one is the ‘Theodontic’ version, which is closer to the Hebrew text represented by the MT, and the earlier ‘Old Greek’ (OG) version. What’s interesting is the level of difference between the MT and the OG versions in chapters 3-6: the OG expands in chapters 4 and 6, while the MT contains more material in chapter 5.

3.) Some of you might recognize the names ‘1 Ezra’ and ‘2 Ezra’, if only because you’ve read the Douai-Rheims’ reference to ‘1 Esdras’ (= Ezra) and ‘2 Esdras’ (= Nehemiah). But in the context of the Septuagint, ‘2 Ezra’ actually corresponds to our Ezra-Nehemiah. Guess what 1 Ezra is: it’s a pastiche that combines stuff from Ezra, Nehemiah, and other material (some taken from 2 Chronicles, others original) into a single narrative. So in the Greek canon, you had two different versions of the same text.

I’ll continue when I have more time.

• Another OT book that is shorter in the Greek is Job, but in that case, evidence seems to point that the shorter version was the translator’s doing.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: different versions

We know that people like St. Augustine and Origen often had problems with different versions running around, because they were famous writers and they had their fans. So there you’d be, dictating to your secretary, and somebody else would be listening and taking it down in shorthand somewhere else in earshot. Or there you’d have your manuscript sitting in your house, and somebody would come in and copy off it. Or you’d send an early draft to a friend, and he’d make copies for all his other friends!

So it wouldn’t surprise me if even Jeremiah had fans.

 

[patrick457]

Continuing:

What the evidence seems to show us is, the earlier you go back, the more diversity you’ll find. Instead of thinking of the biblical text in terms of ‘uniformity before diversity’: one single, pure ‘original text’ from which all the different versions spring as scribes revised the text and introduced errors, the reverse seems to be the case. You first had diversity, in other words, different (sometimes significantly different) original versions of the same text floating around, before uniformity, when the text became free of significant variants over time, as scribes began to establish a ‘standard’ edition.

You can see it in both the Old Testament (where you first had different, diverse versions circulating before Jewish scribes ‘picked’ one version out of the others and established it as the standard version - what would later become the Masoretic Text) - and the New Testament (where earlier on, you had versions like the Alexandrian or Western or Byzantine text-types or somewhere in between, before Christian scribes ‘chose’ one version out of many (in this case the Byzantine text) and established it as the standard version).

Ericc mentioned the difference between the Septuagint Genesis-Exodus (which became the basis for the OT quote in Acts) and the MT forms of that text. We actually have three Hebrew versions of those two books: one which became the ancestor of the MT (the ‘proto-Masoretic’/‘proto-rabbinic’ text), another one which underlies the Greek translations (the ‘proto-Septuagintal’ text), and a third one which is closer to the Samaritan version of text (the ‘proto-Samaritan’ text). All three do exhibit some variance with one another.

Now the number of Jacob’s descendants do count as a difference between the diverse versions; it’s not a later alteration/corruption of anything, just a different way of calculation - the ‘seventy-five’ reading counts the five sons and grandsons of Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 46:20, 27;1 Chronicles 7:14-15, 20-25). It’s true that one or two Qumran manuscripts of Exodus support the ‘seventy-five’ reading, but the way the number appears in those manuscripts is worth noting. One seems to read “[seventy] and five,” while the other reads “five and seventy” (the same reading as the Septuagint).

Some scholars actually argue that the ‘seventy’ reading found in the MT was the earlier one: it’s a round number and one pregnant with symbolism, especially in the Torah (the seventy nations of Genesis 10, the seventy elders of Israel in Exodus 24:1 and Numbers 11:16, the idea of God fixing the nations “according to the number of the sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32:8); no wonder the authorities behind the MT - who could have noticed the parallel between the seventy nations and the seventy descendants of Jacob - preferred it. The ‘seventy and five’/‘five and seventy’ reading, on the other hand, was a later edit, made to include Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s descendants in the reckoning and to reflect more clearly the tradition that a larger number entered Egypt. (Another possible motivation is the inclusion of the four kingdoms of Nimrod and the Philistines among the count in Genesis 10, making the number of the nations seventy-five. So in other words, just a matter of different calculation.)

I’ll take a break here again.

 

[patrick457]

I made a diagram. This is not 100% accurate; it only shows you a rough, overgeneralized picture of the process.



You could also think of it in terms of music (again, this is just a rough analogy): you have the album version of a given song (which represents the ‘final product’), and demo versions (which represent various stages in the song’s development). That’s not counting the live recordings - some artists play songs that were yet to be released on an album, so those versions also count as ‘not-yet-final versions’ - and the bootlegs. (And cover versions. ) Different versions of one single song in circulation.

 

[SFH]

Most modern translations use the Masoretic text. The closest translation to the Septuagint that I’ve seen in the Old Testament is the translation by The Catholic Bible Project at wwww.thecatholicbible project.org. They use the Masoretic text, but adopt Septuagint interpretations when consistent with the Nova Vulgata.

They’re also the only ones who accurately translate Luke 13:32 – “Go tell that effeminate fox!”

 

[DaveBj]

Most modern translations use the Masoretic text. The closest translation to the Septuagint that I’ve seen in the Old Testament is the translation by The Catholic Bible Project at wwww.thecatholicbible project.org. They use the Masoretic text, but adopt Septuagint interpretations when consistent with the Nova Vulgata.

They’re also the only ones who accurately translate Luke 13:32 – “Go tell that effeminate fox!”

The Greek word for “fox,” “alopex,” is grammatically feminine, but that does not necessarily constitute a slur on Herod’s sexuality. I have not been able to find a corresponding masculine word in Greek, like the English “fox” for the feminine “vixen.”

 

[patrick457]

The Greek word for “fox,” “alopex,” is grammatically feminine, but that does not necessarily constitute a slur on Herod’s sexuality. I have not been able to find a corresponding masculine word in Greek, like the English “fox” for the feminine “vixen.”

You’d think that Antipas is anything but effeminate if you considered his affair with Herodias.

 

[ericc]

I think I better get my brain tuned up for accounting gymnastics if I am challenged to reconcile Acts 75 and Genesis 70 headcount. I don’t think I will ever sound convincing.

It will probably sound something like this:

That number, oh you will have to include some females but not all (don’t know why either) and the other number, I think the grand children were omitted. Yes I know grandchildren were included in the 66 but excluded Joseph’s. Why? errrrr… I’m not sure. They probably were not very good accountants/statisticians OR that number rhymes with the symbols elsewhere. Don’t you think it looks better that way, 70 all over… This is like going to an interview with zero preparation.:bigyikes:

Does anyone have the names of Joseph’s 6 grandkids to make up the 9 headcount for Joseph? Were they already in existence by the time Jacob migrated to Egypt?

 

[Ignatius]

I have heard it mentioned on ca live quite a few times that it was most likely the lxx that was used by the apostles and read by Jesus. Yet every modern bible seems to use the masoretic texts as the basis for the ot. I don’t understand why this is. Whatever was good enough for the Lord and quoted by the apostles is good enough for me.

Does anyone know which, if any, Catholic translations use the lxx as their basis?

Douay-Rimes OT.

 

[bauerice]

orthodoxstudybible.com/about/

 

[sirach2v4]

The problem is that those who claim Jesus and the apostles used the LXX is false. Jesus and the apostles were Palestinian Jews, and as such, used the Hebrew in worship. Catholic apologists should stop using this argument; it makes us look desperate.

What IS true, is that the New Testament *authors *(some of whom were apostles), did use the LXX for their Greek New Testament quotes.

No Catholic translation uses the LXX as its basis, as the Church (Divino Afflante Spiritu, Liturgiam authenticam) requires translations from the original languages. The LXX is only a translation and any translation made from is would be one translation level removed from the inspired originals.

There are some good points in this post to comment on.

you can get an Orthodox Bible (amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421653253&sr=1-2&keywords=orthodox+study+bible) which blends the King James OT with the Septuagint.

But, you see, when they “blend” is where they agree. I haven’t checked out this edition exhaustively, but “blending” is misleading. The Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic text in many places, so, in Greek or in English, which is it? the Masoretic or Septuagint text? How can you tell?

This book (amazon.com/Why-Do-Catholics-That/dp/0345397266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421653502&sr=1-1&keywords=why+do+catholics+do+that+by+kevin+orlin+johnson) with imprimatur, declares that the Septuagint is the OFFICIAL old testament text of the Catholic Church.

But, still, the orthodox study bible has a psalm 151, which is not in the Catholic Bible.

On the other topic, what exactly was Paul referring to in 2 Tim 3, when he said that “all scripture is inspired by God” ??? What “all scripture” is he referring to? He was writing in Greek, to Greek-speaking people (essentially) so how can we conclude that he was referring to anything BUT the Septuagint? He didn’t have to explain, because his readers/listeners knew what he was referring to.

 

[patrick457]

On the other topic, what exactly was Paul referring to in 2 Tim 3, when he said that “all scripture is inspired by God” ??? What “all scripture” is he referring to? He was writing in Greek, to Greek-speaking people (essentially) so how can we conclude that he was referring to anything BUT the Septuagint? He didn’t have to explain, because his readers/listeners knew what he was referring to.

Of course, you have to be a bit wary here. A common misconception/oversimplification that many people commit is to think of and refer to a particular collection as being “the Septuagint.” Many scholars themselves, while they are more aware of the actual situation in those days, still somewhat misleadingly choose to use this shorthand (“The evangelists/Paul quoted the Septuagint,” etc.), as if Paul or the evangelists consulted a huge, fat book called ‘The Septuagint’ or Mark or Luke or Paul somehow decided to drop by a local bookstore and decided to purchase their own copies.

Properly speaking, what the term ‘Septuagint’ means could either be (1) in the strict (and the original) sense, the earliest translation of the first five books of the Old Testament - the Torah or the Pentateuch - into Greek (ca. late 3rd century BC); the earliest versions of the other books (3rd-1st century BC) are instead called “Old Greek”; or (2) in a more looser way, as a catch-all reference to the earliest translations of the different books as a whole, or even (3) Scriptural books in Greek that were available to the early Christians, with no care as to whether they were the oldest translations or not.

Of course, you have to remember a few things in addition:

(1) There was no ‘Bible’ - in the sense of ‘all the sacred writings collected in one book/scroll’ - back then. Scrolls (the most common writing medium at the time; the codex - our modern book - wasn’t invented until the late 1st-early 2nd century) can only contain so much writing. A scroll that contained every sacred writing known to Jews would have been very bulky and impractical to read (with a scroll, you can’t just flip a page), not to mention prohibitively expensive. It’s not coincidental that Christians got around to discussing the canon of Scripture roughly at the same time the technology of the codex (the book) became adequate to contain so many writings. Instead, what you had back then is that different books or sections of Scripture have their own separate scrolls: say, one for the Torah (Pentateuch), one for Isaiah, one for the Psalms, one for the Minor Prophets, etc. So essentially, the ‘Bible’ for Jesus and the early Christians was not a single ‘book’, but a library of scrolls.

(2) Not everyone would have had a copy of all the scriptural ‘books’. As mentioned, the number of scrolls required for that would be enough to form a mini-library, a luxury that only a select few could really afford. Instead, most people and institutions probably only had copies of the more popular writings (say, Isaiah, the Psalms, Deuteronomy - the top three). Sometimes they probably might not have even had formal copies at all but just a handy collection of snippets from different OT books known as a florilegium.

The problem when we say ‘the Septuagint’ really is that we assume this fixed collection of books. Sometimes we might even imagine said collection to be bound under one cover - just like our modern Bibles. But that isn’t really the case. Instead, what you had was different translations of different writings into Greek. It wasn’t a fixed collection, nor were all these translations lumped together into a single catch-all category or even a single scroll/book (yet). One of the few things in common between them is that they were all in Greek.

So St. Paul could have well been referring to the Old Testament (and/or translations of it) when he said “all scripture,” but I highly doubt that he had in his mind our modern idea of ‘the Septuagint’.