How different are Septuagint and New Testament greek?

[josephback]

If I learn the latter wil I be able to read the former?

 

[Salvatore123]

The Septuagint is the OLD TESTAMENT in Greek - not the New Testament.

If you can understand Koine Greek that was spoken from around 300 BC to 300 AD), you would probably be able to interpret some words, but not many.

 

[josephback]

The Septuagint is the OLD TESTAMENT in Greek - not the New Testament.

If you can understand Koine Greek that was spoken from around 300 BC to 300 AD), you would probably be able to interpret some words, but not many.

Ok.

My brother knows Hebrew. Maybe I’ll rely on him.

 

[Rejoice_Always]

If you learn Koine Greek, you’ll be able to understand the Septuagint (OT in Koine Grk) and the NT.

Or you could learn Latin and read the Vulgate.

 

[pgepps]

Yeah, not sure what Salvatore’s answer was meant to convey. The Greek of the Septuagint is common Greek (koine Greek), as is the Greek of the New Testament. There will be some differences in usage, but far fewer than between the Greek of Homer or Aeschylus and Biblical Greek.

But by all means, do rely on good Hebrew-language scholarship as well. And don’t miss a chance to learn the Latin!

 

[josephback]

If you learn Koine Greek, you’ll be able to understand the Septuagint (OT in Koine Grk) and the NT.

Or you could learn Latin and read the Vulgate.

I want to learn Latin, but more to read encyclicals and such At any rate, learning New Testament Greek is enough of a challenge for now. This is my second real attempt, and last time I went too fast. Didn’t sufficiently memorize the prepositions or pronouns.

 

[Rejoice_Always]

I want to learn Latin, but more to read encyclicals and such At any rate, learning New Testament Greek is enough of a challenge for now. This is my second real attempt, and last time I went too fast. Didn’t sufficiently memorize the prepositions or pronouns.

I find it challenging enough to read them in English!

 

[Salvatore123]

I hope you did not read my post as one trying to discouraging you from learning something new - I did not mean that at all.

I was simply pointing out that by learning Greek in the NT would not go a long way to learning Greek in the OT.

I just did not want you to get frustrated without realizing the NT and OT were written in two different “kinds” of Greek . . . that’s all

 

[Rejoice_Always]

I just did not want you to get frustrated without realizing the NT and OT were written in two different “kinds” of Greek . . . that’s all

Since the Septuagint and the NT were written in Koine Greek, what are the differences?

 

[patrick457]

If I learn the latter wil I be able to read the former?

Personally I think that there isn’t much of a difference. Sure, there’s this gap of at least a couple of centuries, but the fact is, many of the NT authors have AFAIK consciously adopted and alluded to the language of the OT via the Septuagint in their works (parts of which weren’t in ‘perfect’ Greek anyway: some books were translated literally from the Hebrew and so retained some Semiticisms), so there’s this connection. For a more concrete example, it’s very much like trying to make allusions and references to the English of say, the King James Version.

There would only be a huge difference if you try to read Homer (Homeric Greek) alongside Aristotle (Attic Greek), the gospels (Koine), the Digenes Akritas (Medieval) or Zorba the Greek (Modern).

 

[Salvatore123]

Strictly speaking, the Koine Greek of the OT and the Koine Greek of the NT are not the same.

One must remember that the Koine Greek of the OT (Septuagint) was a TRANSLATION of Hebrew and Aramaic INTO Greek by Semitic scholars.

The Greek of the NT was directly composed into Greek (except, possibly, Matthew - scholars debate whether Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek).

Although, as some have said, there may not be MAJOR differences between the two, sufficient differences exist that cause fundmentalist protestants to argue against the Catholic position (which is one of the arguments for the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals as biblical) that Jesus and the Apostles were referring to the Septuagint when they quoted OT scripture.

There are several websites (I don’t have the cites handy at this time) that demonstrate that the wording used by Christ and the Apostles were most definitely taken from the Septuagint version of the OT and NOT the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the OT. This is but one argument of why the Catholic version of the OT is correct and the protestant version is not.

Of course, Catholics then have to defend why the Septuagint is a valid basis to argue for inclusion of the 7 OT books we have that the protestants don’t, when the Septuagint not only has the 7 OT books catholics have and protestants do not, but the Septuagint also has several other books that we catholics do not recognize as canonical. But this is for another discussion.

P.S. - an example of how differences arise when one is translating from one language into another vs. composing/writing in a language is that some languages simply do not have words that have literal counterparts in the translation. This occurs most often in english regarding the use of male/female pronouns. The english language does not have one first person pronoun that covers male and female, whereas other languages do. We either use (1) male, to refer to both (the traditional), (2) male or female (which becomes lengthy and tedious), and (3) male and/or female (which, from the perspective of english composition, is abhorrent).

 

[patrick457]

Strictly speaking, the Koine Greek of the OT and the Koine Greek of the NT are not the same.

One must remember that the Koine Greek of the OT (Septuagint) was a TRANSLATION of Hebrew and Aramaic INTO Greek by Semitic scholars.

I think its more proper to say that the Septuagint is not so much a ready-made set but a collection of different translations of different Scriptural books. And since they were probably made at different times by different translators (in a period between the 4th-1st century BC), the quality of translation ranges from the highly literal to the paraphrased. Of course a few books which were eventually included were apparently original compositions in Greek (like 2 Maccabees).

I should warn about projecting modern ideas of a fixed, closed canon of Scripture at this time. While the Torah was held by every Jew to be authoritative and people already had pretty good guesses about the Prophets and a few Writings, the ‘canon’ (I’m using it in a loose sense here) was far from being closed: people could conceivably consider other books as authoritative (deutero-canonical) and question some books that were in this de facto ‘canon’. The closing of the canon came with the advance in the technology of the codex. Heretofore the norm was for different writings to be written in different scrolls (or later, codices). And not every community would have had a ‘full set’ of all the writings considered to be of importance. Very often local synagogues (and churches would have owned only those Scriptures that they ‘need’ (the popular ones which were read more often): a Torah scroll, some Prophets (Isaiah seems to have been a mainstay), and a few Writings (like the Psalms). Or one could use alternatives like the so-called testimonia: a collection of different Scriptural quotes, usually centered around a given theme. More convenient and cheaper than buying and keeping different scrolls.

Although, as some have said, there may not be MAJOR differences between the two, sufficient differences exist that cause fundmentalist protestants to argue against the Catholic position (which is one of the arguments for the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals as biblical) that Jesus and the Apostles were referring to the Septuagint when they quoted OT scripture.

There are several websites (I don’t have the cites handy at this time) that demonstrate that the wording used by Christ and the Apostles were most definitely taken from the Septuagint version of the OT and NOT the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the OT.

This is what I’m talking about: the NT authors do not just quote, but also allude to the OT via the LXX - which could be obscured in some translations. That being said, while most OT quotations/allusions in the NT are taken from the Septuagint, there are a few exceptions to the rule.

That being said, I’ve always been confused with the claim that ‘Jesus quoted the LXX.’ The apostles I can understand, but I’m under the impression that Jesus would likely have spoken and taught mainly in Aramaic. Isn’t it possible that He quoted Scripture using the Hebrew or Aramaic translations, but when the NT authors wrote about Jesus quoting Scripture they mostly just used what was readily available instead of translating from scratch?

 

[Southwell]

If I learn the latter wil I be able to read the former?

Legend, and or history tells us that Kone Greek Was developed by Alexander b4 he conquered the known world. Since he commissioned the 70 rabbis to translate the OT into Greek OT/NT same - Kone - differences only in idiom and usage like American and British English

AMDG

Southwell

 

[patrick457]

Legend, and or history tells us that Kone Greek Was developed by Alexander b4 he conquered the known world. Since he commissioned the 70 rabbis to translate the OT into Greek OT/NT same - Kone - differences only in idiom and usage like American and British English

AMDG

Southwell

It was actually Ptolemy II Philadelphos who had commissioned it according to the legend. And yes, Koine Greek first arose as a common dialect among Alexander the Great’s army. Now though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the Classical Era, the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with Alexander’s death in 323 BC.

And as Salvatore said the NT is less distinctively ‘Semitic’ in flavor than the LXX since they were original compositions, although there is still that influence.

Of course this is just a broad generalization, since as mentioned different books vary in quality. There’s the Septuagint being originally an informal group of independent translations of biblical writings, while in the NT you have Luke’s polished style and John’s poetic language contrasting with Mark’s more rough and colloquial writing and Revelation’s terrible Greek.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

For the Septuagint you’ll need a bigger vocabulary, but there is a special Septuagint lexicon out there. You’ll want to look into that one.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Btw, I have the Rahlfs Septuagint with morphological data in pdf format on my pc. Want me to upload it? I’m pretty sure it’s legal.

 

[Salvatore123]

patrick457,

I “subscribe” to the Mel Gibson movie portrayal in The Passion where Jesus would have likely spoken any language necessary to communicate best to the audience he was addressing.

When talking to his disciples, he very likely spoke Aramaic.

When talking to Pilate, he very likely spoke Latin.

And when speaking to large crowds, he could have well spoken Greek, as that was the lingua franca at that time in that region of the world, even amongst the Jews. Most scholarship I have read on the subject indicates that Hebrew was reserved almost exclusively for prayer and reading from the Torah.

I don’t think it unlikely that he spoke a good deal of Greek when addressing large crowds, depending on where he was preaching in Palestine.

P.S. - although Greek does not appear in The Passion, we do not see Christ addressing large crowds, such as when he preached The Beatitudes.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457,

I “subscribe” to the Mel Gibson movie portrayal in The Passion where Jesus would have likely spoken any language necessary to communicate best to the audience he was addressing.

When talking to his disciples, he very likely spoke Aramaic.

When talking to Pilate, he very likely spoke Latin.

And when speaking to large crowds, he could have well spoken Greek, as that was the lingua franca at that time in that region of the world, even amongst the Jews. Most scholarship I have read on the subject indicates that Hebrew was reserved almost exclusively for prayer and reading from the Torah.

I don’t think it unlikely that he spoke a good deal of Greek when addressing large crowds, depending on where he was preaching in Palestine.

P.S. - although Greek does not appear in The Passion, we do not see Christ addressing large crowds, such as when he preached The Beatitudes.

Actually, AFAIK while it was earlier thought that Hebrew had disappeared from daily, common use during the time of Jesus and was virtually ‘dead’ (the Hebrew of later rabbinic literature being later attempts to revive the language), now the idea is that apparently it was still spoken as a native language among a few rural areas down south in Judaea, although Aramaic was indeed more prevalent in other parts of the land - especially in the Galilee.

And since Greek had more of a stronghold than Latin in the eastern part of the Empire - thanks again to Alexander the Great - it was historically the common (koine) speech there, while the Latin was more prevalent in the western half. Just my idea, but I think it’s more likely that Pilate and Jesus spoke in Greek (or if Pilate bothered to learn the local language, then Aramaic). I mean, Pilate’s troops would have been recruited from the local peregrini (non-citizens) from areas like Samaria or even Greek Syria.

P.S. Actually there’s that single flashback where Jesus preaches to a crowd about loving one’s enemies. In Aramaic.

(P.P.S. The Aramaic used in the film was actually a reconstruction based on the Aramaic of the book of Daniel.)

 

[Southwell]

It was actually Ptolemy II Philadelphos who had commissioned it according to the legend. And yes, Koine Greek first arose as a common dialect among Alexander the Great’s army. Now though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the Classical Era, the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with Alexander’s death in 323 BC.

And as Salvatore said the NT is less distinctively ‘Semitic’ in flavor than the LXX since they were original compositions, although there is still that influence.
Of course this is just a broad generalization, since as mentioned different books vary in quality. There’s the Septuagint being originally an informal group of independent translations of biblical writings, while in the NT you have Luke’s polished style and John’s poetic language contrasting with Mark’s more rough and colloquial writing and Revelation’s terrible Greek.

Sorry, my bad, not Alexander, rather, at Alexanderia!! The LXX and NT merge as LXX is the version used by the Gospel writers. You’re right on style, if I’m not wrong St Luke’s is the most polished Greek. Was LXX used along with Hebrew Texts by St Jerome?

Attic, Doric, Koine - it’s all Greek to me!

 

[Salvatore123]

Southwell,

Answering your question, “Was LXX used along with Hebrew Texts by St Jerome?”, is difficult.

First, St. Jerome was not born Christian/Catholic. Like St. Augustine, he sucumbed to temptations as a youth, but as he grew older, he quickly realized and feared for his soul, thus causing him to finally embrace Christianity.

Second, when Pope Damasus I became a patron of St. Jerome, Damasus commissioned Jerome to compile a complete bible into Latin. Although much of the NT already existed in “un-bound” sections often referred to as the Vetus Latina, he took Damasus’s commission to heart by beginning an entirely new translation to be compiled into one NT volume.

Finally - and this is the most difficult - Jerome receives (in my opinion) a “bad rap” as far as his initial view that the OT should have reflected the Hebrew bible vs. the Septuagint. The Council of Jamnia played a role, as did the African councils at the time Jerome was working. Put another way - the Jewish leaders in Palestine (where Jerome was living at the time he was translating/compiling the OT) influenced him, while St. Augustine (who viewed the Septuagint as inspired) “warned” him to accede to Catholic bishops and councils regarding the OT canon. Later in life, Jerome apparently acknowledged that he did not necessarily reject the “catholic canon” deuteros as uninspired. We know that he finally accepted the African councils’ decision regarding the authentic canon, as Jerome’s Vulgate (which no longer exists) contains the Hebrew OT as well as the deuteros.

We do not know for sure if Jerome consulted a GREEK LANGUAGE Septuagint for his Latin translation, or if he merely used the Septuagint canon for his translation.

P.S. - I have found that when one uses the term “Septuagint”, it could mean two things: (1) a list of OT books determined by Orthodoxy as inspired, or (2) one of the 70+ original Greek compositions commission by Ptolemy. No. 2 will necessarily be No. 1 - but No. 1 does not necessarily have to be No. 2.

P.S.S. - Credo, if not too much trouble, I would like for you to upload the OT you reference. I have the Orthodox Study Bible (the first ever produced) that I refer to as a reference when comparing/contrasting with the Duoay Rheims, and would like to compare the OT Septuagint you cite to the one used in the Orthodox Study Bible. Although the Orthodox Study Bible is very “vocal” in its assertion that IT is the “true Church of the Apostles” and quite matter-of-factly states that Rome left the Apostles, I do enjoy reading the translation and some of the commentary.