NT quotes from the Septuagint. How do we know?

[catholica]

I did not know that some copies of the LXX omit the deuteros.

From only browsing, I’ve been left with the thought that we’re not certain that all copies of the LXX had the same books. This may very well be incorrect.

If they were all the same, but contained things we Catholics do not accept, then you point out an excellent objection to using the “the Apostles used it so we should too” argument.

I’d love to hear how Catholic scholars answer it.

 

[Reformed1]

From only browsing, I’ve been left with the thought that we’re not certain that all copies of the LXX had the same books. This may very well be incorrect.

If they were all the same, but contained things we Catholics do not accept, then you point out an excellent objection to using the “the Apostles used it so we should too” argument.

I’d love to hear how Catholic scholars answer it.

It has been awhile since I listened to debates on the subject but I don’t remember any professional RCC apologists making much noise about the deuterocanonicals appearing in the septuagint.

They typically would appeal to the ECF’s and councils, which IMHO present a stronger argument.

 

[catholica]

I’ve asked about this in the Ask an Apologist board to hear their take on it. Questions there can’t be seen until they’re answered, so if you want to check it out when it appears, the subject line is

“Using the Septuagint as an argument for accepting the deuerocanonical books.”

 

[cubalibre]

So when Jesus read from Isaiah in the temple proclaiming the fulfullment of the messianic prophecy did he read from the Septuagint? If so, was it in Greek or a Hebrew translation of the Septuagint?
cubalibre

 

[Mannyfit75]

So when Jesus read from Isaiah in the temple proclaiming the fulfullment of the messianic prophecy did he read from the Septuagint? If so, was it in Greek or a Hebrew translation of the Septuagint?
cubalibre

Jesus quoted from at Isaiah 61:1-2 Douy Rheims Bible.

"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up."

Let us look at the Translations;

Issiah 61:1-2 Septuagint translation:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn.

Masoretic Text

The Spirit of the YHWH is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the year of YHWH’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.
New Testament;

Luke 4.18-19

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

Comments: The LXX (Septuagint) and the NT include the “recovery of sight to the blind” - a concept which is replaced with an opening of prison for those who are bound. Marginal notes in the RSV and the NIV indicate that this MT phrase could be translated “the opening of the eyes” - in the Hebrew, it is simply “the opening.”

The phrase “to heal the broken in heart” - present in the LXX but absent from the UBS NT - can be found in many NT manuscripts. Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority text are prominent examples. The phrase is also quoted by Irenaeus.

The Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsa and 1QIsb both support the Septuagint’s omission of “YHWH” from “the Spirit of the Lord YHWH.”

Source:

geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spIs61-1.html

I changed Jehovah to YHWH or Yahweh which is more proper than Jehovah,

 

[porthos11]

So when Jesus read from Isaiah in the temple proclaiming the fulfullment of the messianic prophecy did he read from the Septuagint? If so, was it in Greek or a Hebrew translation of the Septuagint?
cubalibre

I have always expressed skepticism of this claim. Truly, the LXX was undoubtedly familiar to Galileans, but I’m finding myself hard-pressed to prove that Jesus used the Greek in synagogue.

I never use this argument to defend the Deuterocanonicals. I point out more the fact that the Apostles quoted the LXX in the New Testament, but to claim that Jesus used it in synagogue is climbing out on a limb for me.

 

[catholica]

I am an avid defender of the faith, but in my opinion, bad (or badly worded) arguments for a good thing are just bad arguments.

Here’s another thing in this whole mess that has jumped out at me:

Pasquini says:
150 of them are quotes of deuterocanonicals.

Geisler (one of the big Protestant apologists) says:
No quotes of deuterocanonicals in the NT.

Now, in this case, the burden of proof lies with Pasquini since the absence of something cannot be “shown”.

I do love Pasquini, but if I say the NT has 150 quotes of deuterocanonical books and a Protestant says “I disagree”, then I look like a fool.

This whole subject is fascinating me. Thankfully I see some articles in This Rock to start with…

 

[cazayoux]

I read that of the approx. 350 quotes of Scripture in the NT, 85% are from the Septuagint.

How do we know which quotes are from the Septuagint and which ones are from the Hebrew?

Thanks!

Help me out here.

It seems that the implication is that the deuterocanonical were not in Hebrew.
This was the argument that the Pharasees used when defining there canon at the end of the first century.
However, the dead sea scrolls include two of the deuterocanonicals in Hebrew.

We can say that Jesus quoted from the duetero’s without saying that Jesus was speaking Greek.

right?

michel

 

[catholica]

Help me out here.

It seems that the implication is that the deuterocanonical were not in Hebrew.
This was the argument that the Pharasees used when defining there canon at the end of the first century.
However, the dead sea scrolls include two of the deuterocanonicals in Hebrew.

We can say that Jesus quoted from the duetero’s without saying that Jesus was speaking Greek.

right?

michel

I’m stumped. It’s all french…er, I mean Greek, to me

 

[cazayoux]

I’m stumped. It’s all french…er, I mean Greek, to me

Je ne comprende pas

 

[Truthstalker]

Psalm 2 is quoted word for word, in order, as it appears in the Septuagint in Acts and somewhere else (I forget where off hand).

We, living in a monolingual culture, tend to forget that Palestine was multilingual, even as Palestine is today. Many can switch from English to Hebrew to Arabic without pausing. Multilingual fluency is common in Europe. In Canada they speak French and English. I think Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, and maybe Latin. Aramaic was spoken at home, Greek on the street in trade, and Hebrew in the synagogue. Romans stationed in Palestine probably learned Greek but also knew Latin. I think Jesus preached sometimes in Greek and sometimes in Aramaic and it didn’t bother his mutlilingual audience.

The inspiration of the deuteros cannot be proven by citing their quotation in the NT. Paul quotes pagan philosophers and no one considers their work Scripture.

No one is saying a Greek deutero could not have been translated into Hebrew. Its existence in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not prove a Hebrew origin. Or vice versa, for that matter.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Truthstalker,
If the presence of a text in Hebrew/Aramaic does not prove that it was used in Hebrew (eg. there was no official canon list)
then that alone destroys the authority of anything Hebrew – including the MT in its enirety.

eg. You are correct – the entire argument is biased.

However, whenever Paul quotes from pagan sources (poetry) to support the Christian faith – he is citing something which is correct. Note for example that the poem ‘Phaenomena’ uses ‘dio’ and not Zeus – because Paul would not dare quote something that could be used against him. The rest of the poem is benign as well.

As to whether or not Paul thought there was inspiration in a given text is a different argument from whether or not the text is scriptural. If you read the history of the ‘Unknown God’ mentioned by Paul, it is obvious that Paul was taking advantage of God speaking to the Pagans through one of their prophets. eg. Sheep being slain were the reason for that altar to appease an unknown God (who apparently preferred sheep).

As to the Hebrew vs. Septuagint – It is true that the Hebrew is ambiguous, but there is a pattern where the ambiguities nearly always resolve in favor of the Septuagint reading – for the obvious reason that Hellensitic Jews were the targets of the NT writings as well as Aramaic speakers. (Not ALL Jews could read hebrew/aramaic or speak it, and as an apologetic point – The apostles would target as many people as they could, meaning the common denominator.)

To not target the writings at the widest audience (except where doctrine would be affected adversely) would have hindered the conversion of souls. The apostles were trying to convert the entire known world.

The Alexandrian Jews for the most part could not speak Hebrew/Aramaic – even in the synagogs – for they had been forcibly hellenized for hundreds of years prior to Jesus coming. That was the impetus for translating the Hebrew OT into Greek in the first place. ( Hebrew illiteracy , and a ruler with a Greek Jew population that he needed to understand. )

There are many partial copies of the Septuagint in existance – Origin’s Hexapila although very fragmentary contains much of the text from an early AD (CE) date.
And the fragments of the heapla attest to the circulating versions of the Septuaging which existed prior to it. The MT is a much younger text than the Septuagint from a scholarship perspective.

I wish I had the time to do a thourogh comparison on a few points. Perhaps at a later date.

 

[papaspicy]

No one is saying a Greek deutero could not have been translated into Hebrew. Its existence in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not prove a Hebrew origin. Or vice versa, for that matter.

A scholar that is expert and near fluent in two languages could possibly determine in which direction a translation went, if the translations were literal. At least I know it can be possible between Greek and Latin. However, I think that with a dynamic translation it would be impossible to know.

I have one thought though concerning the usage of the Septuagint in the NT. When I quote the Bible on this forum, I use an English translation unless I am specifically focusing on a Greek word. (I don’t do Hebrew.) Even if I taking the time to write a book, in quoting I would borrow from an English translation done by someone whose specific goal was to accurately translate the writings. So when the New Testament writers sat down to write in Greek, they would have two choices: take the time to translate a text from another language, or copy a trusted translation already in Greek. Doesn’t it just make sense for them to use the Septuagint? Also, would these quotes have been taken from a text of the Septuagint or recorded from memory?

Pax vobiscum

 

[DallasCatholic]

From my reading the Canon was decided on by the Pharisees at the Synod of Jamnia AD 90-100 and even then not conclusively. Which is a bit off your main point which has already been answered by previous posts. The usage of the early Church favours the LXX… this authority is good enough for me!

This is not quite true. For more information on Jamnia (also called Jabneh) please refer to:

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[catholica]

Excellent, excellent (name removed by moderator)ut folks.

I think I am seeing general agreement that

“the apostles quoted from the septuagint, which contained the deuterocanonicals, therefore all Christians should accept the deuterocanonicals as Scripture”

is NOT a good argument to support them being in the Canon.

Again, to clarify: I agree with the Catholic Church’s Canon…but there are good arguments to use in defending it…and not so good ones, right?