LXX

[CalCatholic]

So, in your opinion, Jews would be eager to share their Holy Scriptures with pagans and mix up the Holy writings with pagan writings and pseudo works?

I perfectly understand why the LXX was considered a great tool to witness to gentiles as it was written in a language they could read for themselves, but I am talking about a period in time long before Jesus.

What I don’t understand is how a pagan king can send his pagan librarian out to the Jews to request they turn over their Holy writings for him to copy into Greek - and actually get the Jews to willingly entrust the Scriptures to pagans.

Maybe the Catholics have yet another version of this legend that makes some sense…but I’ll have to search for it myself as none of you seem to want to share it.

Ginger

Ginger, it sounds like you came to this thread with an agenda, and that no answer given to you will suffice until you get the answer that you want to hear. Take any course on the history of the Bible and biblical times whether Catholic of mainstream Protestantism, and you will find out that the answers given you here are accurate. There were more Jews living outside of Palestine than were living in it. For many of these Jews, Greek became their primary language and their knowledge of Hebrew (religious language) probably varied widely. By Jesus’ time, the Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic. After 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed and later in 166 A.D. when Jerusalem was totally sacked, the Jews were forbidden by the Romans from setting foot near Jerusalem. The Jews were again scattered all over the Middle East. So yes it was essential that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) be translated into Greek.

 

[NotWorthy]

Because you don’t provide answers, but speculation that doesn’t fit history. “People wanted to make $&@#(!@ sure that the Jews got the point, so he wrote it in such a way that EVERY Jew could read it.” doesn’t make you sound all that sincere.

Ahhhh, dearest Ginger. I see your dilemma. As I explained in a later post, it was PILOT who wanted to make *$&@#(!@ sure that all Jews read it - hence the three languages. If I was being snarky with that comment, it wasn’t directed to you, but my snarkiness was directed toward Pilot. You see, the Romans had a way of making *$&@#(!@ sure their punishments taught lessons to the Jews - such as the way they would Crucify insurrectionist on crosses just within eyesight of one another along roads that led to Jerusalem. This way, the Jews could travel miles along the roads and with a constant reminder of what happens to those who mess with Rome. I think Pilot was being just as heavy-handed by putting the sign up in multiple languages. Remember, this was Passover, a rather well-attended festival from Jews world-wide. There would have been Jews in the vicinity that had never seen Hebrew writing, or at least Pilot assumed they hadn’t.

And by the way, when I “assume or speculate” as you put it, I simply regurgitate what I’ve read in the past, but I’m lacking the original text to site for you. As others have noted, my information, although un-cross referenced, has not been far from the accepted truth.

Your point about the Alexandrian Jews would be well taken, but not to explain events in Jerusalem where even you admit they were speaking Aramaic if not Hebrew.

And the Judean Jews spoke for all of Judaism?!?

Maybe I should back up a little. The legend of how the LXX was created is what prompted my questions in the first place.

1st, it is based on a pseudepigraphc (sp?) letter. I can’t find any evidence that doesn’t depend solely on this fake letter to support the LXX as being what is claimed.

2nd, the legend doesn’t even make sense. This King set out to have 72 Jews (six from each tribe) translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek at a time when the Jews were relatively new to the Greek language and the tribes were scattered.

3rd, these faithful, God-fearing, well-educated Jews were willing to translate their sacred Scriptures for a pagan king without so much as hesitation. And also translate pseudo- scriptures and mix them together with the divine Scriptures.

4th, they had no objection to tossing the whole works in with secular writings. That is a far cry from the way YHWH told them to handle the sacred books.

Not to mention, how did they get copies of the Hebrew texts to translate? These books weren’t just set out for anyone to borrow.

If you don’t know the answers, why not just say so instead of playing guessing games and then being annoyed that I don’t accept your speculation as fact.

I don’t have the answers, that’s why I asked the questions - to see if someone might have some information.

Ginger

OK, now you are at least making sense. My mind-reading skills are somewhat lacking, so forgive me if I didn’t understand the gist of what you were asking.

My bad.

P.S. Ok, maybe NOW I’m being a little snarky with you!

God Bless!

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, it sounds like you came to this thread with an agenda, and that no answer given to you will suffice until you get the answer that you want to hear. …

That’s a canned response you frequently use when you don’t have an answer. Is it really so hard to admit you simply don’t have all the answers?

All I’m asking for is some back-up info supported by facts. If you have no factual information just say so. As Christians there are just some things we need to take on faith.

 

[CalCatholic]

That’s a canned response you frequently use when you don’t have an answer. Is it really so hard to admit you simply don’t have all the answers?

All I’m asking for is some back-up info supported by facts. If you have no factual information just say so. As Christians there are just some things we need to take on faith.

Why don’t you disprove all the answers given you so far, you just respond that they are not true.

 

[NotWorthy]

2nd, the legend doesn’t even make sense. This King set out to have 72 Jews (six from each tribe) translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek at a time when the Jews were relatively new to the Greek language and the tribes were scattered.

3rd, these faithful, God-fearing, well-educated Jews were willing to translate their sacred Scriptures for a pagan king without so much as hesitation. And also translate pseudo- scriptures and mix them together with the divine Scriptures.

4th, they had no objection to tossing the whole works in with secular writings. That is a far cry from the way YHWH told them to handle the sacred books.

Not to mention, how did they get copies of the Hebrew texts to translate? These books weren’t just set out for anyone to borrow.

OK, I got this from the Catholic Encyclopedia. This may help others who are reading this thread and aren’t quite capable of reading your mind as well:

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people, Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it into Greek.

The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law , helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them.

At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was read in presence of theJewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had it placed in the library.

Now, a little information from the Jewish historical period may help. I think this is covered in Maccabees I and/or II.

Why would Eleazar lend a copy of the Sacred Scriptures to Ptolemy? Judah was stuck in a power struggle between 3 warring countries - Greece, Rome, and Egypt. I think Eleazar was trying to forge a truce with any one or more of the three. This very well could have been a means of improving the relations.

Now, here’s another point that I think will help clarify what happened.

The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

It seems the Septuagint gained favor among the Jews because it was accurate and easy to read. Remember, Hebrew was at best a SECOND language to most Jews. What, in your opinion, is the best way to read a book, in your first language or your second?

 

[CalCatholic]

Ginger, another good reference source on the LXX and its history and usage from its inception and throughout the Christian period, is the Oxford Bible Commentary which gives a very balanced and scholarly treatment of the LXX (Septuagint). It starts on page 617 and runs through page 626, and is listed as, ‘Introduction to the Apocrypha’. It is written by Professor Martin Goodman (University of Oxford). You can find this commentary at most major bookstores like Borders.

 

[juliamajor]

These articles are from the" Jewish encyclopedia"

The settlement of large numbers of Jews in various parts of the Greek world, the Hellenization of Palestine, and the presence in Jerusalem of Jews from all countries, especially from those under Greek influence, in course of time forced the Rabbis to treat the question more liberally. According to Meg. ii. 1, it was forbidden to read the Megillah in Aramaic or in any other non-Hebrew language, except for the foreign Jews () in Jerusalem (compare the Baraita in Bab. Meg. 18a; Shab. 115b); and that such foreign Jews were in the city in large numbers is seen from Acts ii. 5-11. So, also, it is found, according to another tradition (Meg. i. 8), that it was permitted to write the Biblical books in any language (); though R. Simon ben Gamaliel would restrict this permission to Greek (Yer. Meg. i. 1): “After careful examination it was found that the Pentateuch could be adequately translated only into Greek”). Evidence exists of the fact that in the synagogue of the Greek was freely used (Tosef., Meg. iv. 13). There is even a tradition that Greek letters were engraven upon the chest in the Temple in which the shekels were kept (Sheḳ. iii. 2); and there is also Christian testimony to this effect (Justin, “Cohortatio ad Græcos,” xiii.; Tertullian, “Apologia,” xviii.; Frankel, “Vorstudien,” p. 56). It is reported that in Asia Minor R. Meïr was unable to find a Megillah written in Hebrew (Tosef., Meg. ii. 4); and the weekly lessons both from the Law and the Prophets were at an early date read in Greek in Alexandria (“Jew. Quart. Rev.” ix. 730). This makes comprehensible the statement that “the Law can be read in any language” (Soṭah 33a; Meg. 17b). The well-known passage in the Mishnah (Yad. iv. 5) which mentions the Levitical impurity occasioned by touching Biblical books, and which especially excepts the Targum from these provisions, has been very properly explained by Blau as referring to different degrees of sanctity only: no translation could, of course, be put upon the same level with the original Hebrew.

At a later time—perhaps in the second century ofthe present era—a different view seems to have prevailed; and it was said that the day on which the Law was translated into Greek was as unfortunate for the Jews as that on which the Golden Calf was made (Soferim i. 8, 9). Even to teach children Greek was forbidden (Soṭah ix. 14); though it was still permitted to teach a girl Greek, as a knowledge of that language was considered to be an accomplishment. Evidently this change of view was occasioned by the rise of the Christian Church, which used the Bible only in the Septuagint Version. It will be seen that in the Middle Ages the desire to please the women during the service and to instruct them led to the introduction of the vernacular, especially for the prophetical lessons. The treatise Soferim even makes it a duty “to translate, for the women, the weekly readings from the Pentateuch and the Prophets before the close of the service. The translation was not read verse by verse after the Hebrew, but as one continuous passage” (Abrahams, “Jewish Life in the Middle Ages,” p. 345).

 

[juliamajor]

The Septuagint.

The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called “The Septuagint” (“Interpretatio septuaginta virorum” or “seniorum”). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his “Letter to Philocrates” the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in “Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz (“Gesch. der Juden,” 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life.

It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s work, speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, “An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek,” ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the “Peshiṭta.”

Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others. Where it is literal it is “intolerable as a literary work” (Swete, ib. p. 22). The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther’s translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artabanus, Aristeas, Ezekiel, and Aristobulus, as well as in the Book of Wisdom, the translation of Ben Sira, and the Jewish Sibyllines. Hornemann, Siegfried, and Ryle have shown that Philo bases his citations from the Bible on the Septuagint Version, though he has no scruple about modifying them or citing them with much freedom. Josephus follows this translation closely (Freudenthal, “Hellenistische Studien,” ii. 171; Siegfried, in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” iii. 32). It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.

 

[Zooey]

I didn’t mean to suggest a specific law was written forbidding translations. If that were so, our Bibles today would all be written in Hebrew.

My comment was pertaining to the laws of separation. Hebrews were not to intermingle with pagans and all non-Hebrews were pagans. This is why it is so unbelievable.

If I thought you were correct that “Hebrew had died out as a vernacular langauge during the Babylonian exile and gotten replaced by Aramaic.” I would have to ask how it is that Jews today can speak Hebrew? It is part of their religious instruction.

I would really like to know what the rational behind translating to Greek would have been? It seems totally contrary to their culture at the time.

Ginger

I actually was discussing this with a friend not too long ago. He grew up in New York City, near an area with a large (and very conservative) Jewish population, & practically no one among the Jews knew any Hebrew except for a little that they learned by rote to recite for their bar mitzvah; what most spoke (besides English) was Yiddish, and either Polish or German.
Since the written Hebrew (which was preserved only by a few scholars) no longer had any indication of how to pronounce it, it was pronounced with a Yiddish/German/Polish accent (with guesses as to the vowels, which were nonexistent).
OK. This was back before the formation of modern Israel, & today there are a few more people who know some Hebrew, but it is still not that common outside of Israel. The Hebrew prayers are learned by rote, with a translation in the prayer books for people to follow.
Now go back to the times of the Septuagint, & you find that, in many places, it was illegal to speak Hebrew. So everybody learned relaated languages (mostly Aramaic), along with Greek, which was the true international language at that time. (If the work had been done a few decades later, it might well have been put into Latin.
And at that, that are parts of the Old Testament that no longer exist in Hebrew…they are written in Aramaic, even in Jewish Bibles, because nobody knows what they said in the original.
The complete Scriptures existed only in Greek in Jesus’ time. The Hebrew versions we have today have been re-created by scholars working from scrolls that were assembled in bits and pieces from various sources.
Remember that paper was VERY valuable at that time–hard for us to imagine–and folks would scrape the writing off of the scrolls they had, & write something else on the top. We are only fairly recently developing the technology that is needed to read what was written there first.
HTH.

 

[patrick457]

First of all, the Septuagint is a translation by Hellenistic Greek-speaking Jews, for Hellenistic Greek-speaking Jews, despite the Letter of Aristeas.

In the 3rd century BC, most Jewish communities (aside from Judea) were located in the Hellenistic world where Greek was the lingua franca. It is believed that the Septuagint was produced because many Jews outside of Judea needed a Greek version of Scriptures for use during synagogue readings or for religious study - newer generations of these Hellenistic Jews would have grown up knowing little to no Hebrew. For this reason it became rather popular.

Note that by the final centuries before Christ, it would seem that some Diaspora Jewish circles had taken a sort of interest in sharing their faith with their non-Jewish neighbors - this would explain the “God-fearers” and gerim/giyoret (“proselytes”) we hear about in the New Testament.

One example of such a “Hellenistic Jewish apologist” was Philo of Alexandria, himself an Hellenistic Jew. He presented Judaism as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Customs of Judaism that struck urban Hellenistic society as atavistic or exotic, such as circumcision, Philo could translate into metaphor, speaking of a “circumcision of the heart” in the pursuit of virtue. The Septuagint would have been a great benefit for these who are attracted to Judaism - in fact it is the only example we have of an oriental book translated in Greek in antiquity and the first instance when one ethnicity’s sacred book was translated to another tongue. Whoever wrote the Letter of Aristeas is another.

Note that Judaism back then was not the homogenous, codified religion that it is today. There were various diverse groups of Judaism (Hellenistic Jews, Pharisaic Jews, or Sadducean Jews for instance), who while agreeing on many basics, often disagree against each other on the details. It was anything but uniform.

As for Hebrew, it continued to flourish in some way (mainly as a scholarly and literary language) among the local dialects of Aramaic in Judea - into what extent is still a controversial issue, but it is mostly confined and preserved in Judea. The Jews in the province of Judea championed the languages spoken in their area, but those in the diaspora - and many of those in more cosmopolitan areas - chose the lingua franca, Greek.

For example, Jewish inscriptions in Greek-speaking areas (such as in Asia Minor and Rome) are often in Greek or Latin, but Hebrew appears only rarely. Out of the inscriptions found in Jerusalem - one such example of a cosmopolitan city within Judea - one-third are written in Greek. And there might be some evidence that the LXX enjoyed popularity there.

 

[Ginger2]

Thank you. These last few post were indeed very helpful.

Altho, I have to wonder why the Jewish encyclopedia references the Christian Bible NT. That came as a surprise! Apparently they honor it at least as an historic source of information.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

As I have been studying, I found evidence to support the Torah was indeed commissioned to be translated into Greek by Ptolemy Philadelphus.

However, only the Torah was allowed to be translated. The Jews did not allow the Prophets and Writings to be translated.

Furthermore, it was not translated for the benefit of the Jewish people to read. In places they intentionally changed some of texts from the original Hebrew texts. It was further stated that the Jews considered them Apocrypha because of these departures from the original.

The reasoning behind the changes is said to have been because the Hellenists wanted the books for historical value and wisdom, but rejected any spiritual value concerning God. They didn’t think Hellenists could understand the Torah and removed or changed parts that would be distorted by them.

Also, the LXX has been revised (changed) and today is not in its original form.

So, my next question is, when and how were the other books in the Septuagint added? And who added them?

 

[NotWorthy]

As I have been studying, I found evidence to support the Torah was indeed commissioned to be translated into Greek by Ptolemy Philadelphus.

However, only the Torah was allowed to be translated. The Jews did not allow the Prophets and Writings to be translated.

Furthermore, it was not translated for the benefit of the Jewish people to read. In places they intentionally changed some of texts from the original Hebrew texts. It was further stated that the Jews considered them Apocrypha because of these departures from the original.

The reasoning behind the changes is said to have been because the Hellenists wanted the books for historical value and wisdom, but rejected any spiritual value concerning God. They didn’t think Hellenists could understand the Torah and removed or changed parts that would be distorted by them.

Also, the LXX has been revised (changed) and today is not in its original form.

So, my next question is, when and how were the other books in the Septuagint added? And who added them?

I’m not sure where you get that Jews did not accept the LXX. As the New Testament clearly shows, the LXX was used a majority of the time when quoting Scripture, for example, Matthews rendering of Isaiah 7:14 is from the Greek Scriptures, not the Hebrew.

You are correct that the LXX only consisted of the Torah. I don’t know why the rest weren’t included, or even if they were requested by Ptolemy for translation. It was over the next few centuries after the LXX (Torah only) was translated, the rest of the Jewish Scriptures were translated, although not necessarily by the same commission. It was all converted and had widespread use by the time of Jesus (again, as the frequent quoting of the Greek Scriptures will attest to).

Your point on just the Torah being translated may be due to the fact that the Sadducees only recognized the Torah as Scriptural. The other books may be holy and worthy of reading, but they weren’t considered God-breathed. The Sadducees, if I’m correct, came from the time of the Maccabees.

The Pharisees were a later developement in Judaism. They considered the entire Septuagint as Scriptural, not just the Torah.

 

[Ginger2]

I’m not sure where you get that Jews did not accept the LXX. As the New Testament clearly shows, the LXX was used a majority of the time when quoting Scripture, for example, Matthews rendering of Isaiah 7:14 is from the Greek Scriptures, not the Hebrew.

The above claim is totally false and has been proven false in other threads, many times.

You are comparing two different languages. Of course Greek compared to Greek is going to look more alike than Greek to Hebrew.

The Hebrew word used in Is 7:14 also refers to a virgin. Since Jews understood it referred to a virgin, they would of of course translate it into the Greek as such.

However, that was a much better attempt to prove your point than I have encountered in the past.

Your point on just the Torah being translated may be due to the fact that the Sadducees only recognized the Torah as Scriptural.

Surely you are not suggesting Sadducees were commissioned to translate the Torah?

If indeed the Sadducees translated the Torah there is even more reason to call its credibility into question.

 

[Omyo12]

I think an important part we are missing is which tradition we follow in regards to canon.

Today, Catholics and Protestants translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew (the Deuterocanon from the LXX with reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls).

However, the traditional canon to Christians is mostly the LXX, not the Hebrew.

Since Christianity spread not only amongst the Jews but the Gentiles, the LXX was what most read. As it’s been noted, Hebrew was already a dying language (like Latin is today) and Gentiles did not understand.

The inspired New Testament writers did quote from the LXX.

Note however, that it is hard to see all connections between the LXX and the New Testament because since it is translated from the Hebrew many passages read the same way.

Church fathers like Origen (who evangelical protestants claim created the LXX) and St. Augustine preferred the LXX.
St. Jerome used the Hebrew but with heavy influence from the LXX in translating the Latin Vulgate.

The Jewish canon was not “official” until c.90 AD after the fall of Jerusalem though the Palestinian tradition was much older.
By 382, the Christian canon was pretty much the modern Catholic canon. 46 in the Old Testament and most importantly 27 in the New Testament.

Ginger2:

Also, the LXX has been revised (changed) and today is not in its original form.

Yes, but so has the Hebrew…

In fact, based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX is just as important in textual criticism as the Masoretic in some readings.

 

[NotWorthy]

The above claim is totally false and has been proven false in other threads, many times.

You are comparing two different languages. Of course Greek compared to Greek is going to look more alike than Greek to Hebrew.

The Hebrew word used in Is 7:14 also refers to a virgin. Since Jews understood it referred to a virgin, they would of of course translate it into the Greek as such.

However, that was a much better attempt to prove your point than I have encountered in the past.

Wow! Thanks for the slightly underhanded compliment! But hey, I’ll take what I can get from you!

But what is false - the Isaiah example? Or the fact that the Greek Septuagint is referenced far more than the Hebrew? I’ve never heard that one and thought this was basically universally accepted.

The reasoning I gave for that was based on the assumption that Hebrew to Greek conversion does not always bring out the same translation. For instance, a word in Hebrew may translate to any one of 6 different Greek words. The fact that the NT authors almost always used the same Greek word that was found in the Septuagint leads one to believe that the Greek Septuagint was widely used as a source for the Scriptural References found in the NT.

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, for instance, more accurately translates to the phrase “young maiden”.

Surely you are not suggesting Sadducees were commissioned to translate the Torah?

If indeed the Sadducees translated the Torah there is even more reason to call its credibility into question.

No. I’m suggesting that when Ptolemy asked the Jews in Judea for the Scriptures to translate, the Sadducees, who I’m thinking were the religious leaders of the time, would have given Ptolemy what they thought were the Scriptures - which was only the Torah. Incidentally, the Samaritans followed this same line of logic.

 

[Ginger2]

No. I’m suggesting that when Ptolemy asked the Jews in Judea for the Scriptures to translate, the Sadducees, who I’m thinking were the religious leaders of the time, would have given Ptolemy what they thought were the Scriptures - which was only the Torah. Incidentally, the Samaritans followed this same line of logic.

Where is your evidence that the Sadducees were “the religious leaders of the time”?

I don’t think there is even any evidence this particular sect existed in that era.

BTW, it was not intended as “slightly underhanded compliment”

Most of the time this claim is accompanied by verses such as Matthew 2:16 “Then Herod, …slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, …”
They claim this was prophesied in:
Wisdom 11:7. For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust.

However, the very next verse in Matthew says it fulfills the prophesy spoken by Jeremiah:
Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, (re: Jer 31:15 )

Matt 2:16 is the worst example, but there are many such claims that don’t hold water.

I was acknowledging your example could at least be considered.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where is your evidence that the Sadducees were "the religious leaders of the time"?

I don’t think there is even any evidence this particular sect existed in that era.

The Sadducees were thought to have originated in the time of 1st Maccabees from the high priesthood of John Hyrcanus. I’m going off memory so please bear with me. John dealt with an Egyptian King named Ptolemy, but that could be any one of 10 that were Pharaoh’s of Egypt.

BTW, it was not intended as “slightly underhanded compliment”

Then I’m terribly sorry that I questioned the sincerity of the compliment. And thanks for the original compliment.

Most of the time this claim is accompanied by verses such as Matthew 2:16 “Then Herod, …slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, …”
They claim this was prophesied in:
Wisdom 11:7. For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust.

However, the very next verse in Matthew says it fulfills the prophesy spoken by Jeremiah:
Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, (re: Jer 31:15 )

Matt 2:16 is the worst example, but there are many such claims that don’t hold water.

The problem with this example is that I did not throw it out, so I really don’t care if it specifically holds water. I’ll see if I can find some concrete information on just why a vast majority of scholars feel the NT writers used the Septuagint as a source for their OT Scripture quotes.

I was acknowledging your example could at least be considered.

And again, I’m sorry for thinking that you were simply being sarcastic.

My bad.

 

[juliamajor]

It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s work, speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, “An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek,” ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the “Peshiṭta.”

 

[juliamajor]

Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others. Where it is literal it is “intolerable as a literary work” (Swete, ib. p. 22). The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther’s translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artabanus, Aristeas, Ezekiel, and Aristobulus, as well as in the Book of Wisdom, the translation of Ben Sira, and the Jewish Sibyllines. Hornemann, Siegfried, and Ryle have shown that Philo bases his citations from the Bible on the Septuagint Version, though he has no scruple about modifying them or citing them with much freedom. Josephus follows this translation closely (Freudenthal, “Hellenistische Studien,” ii. 171; Siegfried, in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” iii. 32). It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.