NT quotes from the Septuagint. How do we know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholica

Guest
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!
 
Any quotes from or references to the books of: Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Macabees or Wisdom would be, by definition, from the Septuagint.
 
Thanks, Strider, but I understand that aspect of it… but I’m looking for more basic support of how to tell (especially if the quote is from, for example, Genesis) that a quote (any quote…even if from a book that is not from what protestants call the Apocrypha, is from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew.

To further clarify. In Catholic Answers, Protestant Questions, (an awesome resource, by the way), Fr. John J. Pasquini says “The New Testament quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances, the quotation is taken from the Septuagint…” I’m aware that about 150 of the quotes are from the “apocrypha” but what about the others? How can we tell that a quote from, say, Genesis, is from the Septuagint or the Hebrew?
 
Oops…I was posting but did not see the posts by Daniel.

Thanks, Daniel. I’ll check those out 👍
 
catholica said:
Thanks, Strider, but I understand that aspect of it… but I’m looking for more basic support of how to tell (especially if the quote is from, for example, Genesis) that a quote (any quote…even if from a book that is not from what protestants call the Apocrypha, is from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew.

To further clarify. In Catholic Answers, Protestant Questions, (an awesome resource, by the way), Fr. John J. Pasquini says “The New Testament quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances, the quotation is taken from the Septuagint…” I’m aware that about 150 of the quotes are from the “apocrypha” but what about the others? How can we tell that a quote from, say, Genesis, is from the Septuagint or the Hebrew?
Click to expand...
When Fr. Pasquini says “in 300 of those instances…” he might not mean that it’s because those verses appear *only *in the Septuagint “apocrypha”. It could also mean that it’s because the way those verses are expressed (in the earliest copies of our NT - the language/information/etc) agree more with the Septuagint than the oldest available Hebrew texts. For eg., a NT verse may use a specific word or phrase as articulated in the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew; or may contain additional (name removed by moderator)ut included in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew.

This is my understanding - and would appreciate feedback if that is in error. (Do not like error - and even worse, would hate to pass it on. 😦 )

As to how you can know, when you are reading OT quotes in the NT, it would depend upon whether your Bible includes such info in it’s footnotes. If you can’t find such a Bible, you can always use Daniel’s website connections and “write” your own footnotes 🙂 !!

Nita
 
Or you could learn Greek, get a copy of the NT in Greek, get a copy of the Septuagint OT…

🙂
 
Nita, Fr. Pasquini’s note is to point out that since the apostles quoted from the Septuagint - and the Septuagint contained the “apocrypha” - then that’s good evidence that the books of the apocrypha should be accepted in the Canon.

But in further reading since first posting on this, I find a further complication: I understand that we do not have a 1st century copy of the Septuagint to confirm that all of those books were included.

What I’m really trying to do is see if this argument is a good one to use with Protestants:

“Since most of the quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the books of “the apocrypha”, then we should accept the books of the apocrypha in the Canon”.

Of course I accept those books because the Church accepts them…but of course that’s not a good argument for Protestants :rolleyes:
 
The Good News Bible (Today’s English Version) has as one of its appendices “New Testament Quotes Taken from the Septuagint.” It’s a good reference. Although the TEV is a very dynamic translation, nevertheless, you can see the differences between the LXX quotations and the corresponding verses from the Hebrew.
 
Hi Rick, as you know the OT we have today is translated from the hebrew, so check a NT quote of the OT in the OT to see if it matches the text. If it is word for word, likely it is a quote of the hebrew. I suggest using a liberal translation like the RSV. For example, the hebrew has “young woman” ( father Most points out that a “young woman” in their times was/is a virgin ) and Matthew has “virgin”, in this case Matthew was quoting the LXX.

When in doubt consult a Jewish translation of the OT, since they want to make distinctions between the hebrew text and LXX in cases like Matthew quote of Isaiah.

If it is exact word for word from OT it is likely a quote from the hebrew. If there is an variance, assume it is likely the LXX.
 
The best argument I find is to ask why did the Palestinian Jew ultimately reject the LXX. The reason of course was that the Alexandrian Canon became so closely associated with the converted Greek Christian. Simple yet compelling. The Hebrews had no internal reason for rejecting a canon which had been accepted for centuries without a decision either way.
 
kindlylight said:
The best argument I find is to ask why did the Palestinian Jew ultimately reject the LXX. The reason of course was that the Alexandrian Canon became so closely associated with the converted Greek Christian. Simple yet compelling. The Hebrews had no internal reason for rejecting a canon which had been accepted for centuries without a decision either way.
Click to expand...
I like the thought, but see a problem. We cannot point to certain historical evidence that the Hebrew Canon included the “apocrypha” for “centuries”.

Isn’t it true that most Catholic scholars (at least the historical apologists) agree that exactly when (or even IF) the Jews “generally” accepted the Canon that includes the apocrypha is not certain?

…or have I have missed something from recent discovery?
 
Catholica, Confusion can arise when the expression apocryphal is used without care. Apocryphal for the Catholic means that a book is neither inspired nor authentic. The correct words are protocanonical for all books of the Hebrew canon and deuterocanonical for those books which were found only in the Greek canon. 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!
 
I should have clarified. It is certainly good enough for me too. I’m using “apocrypha” in quotes meaning as the Protestant uses it.

I love this apologist I’m reading - and I like this “angle” on the Canon, but his short summary of [paraphrased] “the apostles accepted the LXX as scripture, and since it contained the deuterocanonical books, we should accept it also” just needs beefed up.

…so for my own knowledge - and arsenal of defenses for future battles 😛 - I’m learning what I can.
 
catholica said:
Nita, Fr. Pasquini’s note is to point out that since the apostles quoted from the Septuagint - and the Septuagint contained the “apocrypha” - then that’s good evidence that the books of the apocrypha should be accepted in the Canon.

But in further reading since first posting on this, I find a further complication: I understand that we do not have a 1st century copy of the Septuagint to confirm that all of those books were included.

What I’m really trying to do is see if this argument is a good one to use with Protestants:

“Since most of the quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the books of “the apocrypha”, then we should accept the books of the apocrypha in the Canon”.

Of course I accept those books because the Church accepts them…but of course that’s not a good argument for Protestants :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am a protestant and no, I don’t think trying to argue that the book of 1 Maccabees is “God breathed” just because it is included in the septuagint and the apostles and Jesus used the septuagint.

The reason I don’t think it is a good argument is because there are other books that both RCC and protestants agree are certainly not scripture, books such as 3 Maccabees.

For your argument to be consistent, you would at least have to accept all the books that the septuagint contained as scripture.

I know you guys probably have dozens and dozens of reasons to accept the books you call the deuterocanonicals, but this argument is flawed.
 
Reformed1 said:
For your argument to be consistent, you would at least have to accept all the books that the septuagint contained as scripture.

I know you guys probably have dozens and dozens of reasons to accept the books you call the deuterocanonicals, but this argument is flawed.
Click to expand...
As one who accepts them, I agree on both counts. That is why I am eager to learn what I can of the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD Septuagint.

Even many protestants and most secular sources on LXX agree that it is generally known to have contained the deuterocanonical books, but the admitted “loophole” is that it seems that not all of them did.

Is that where we’re at with a point of agreement?
 
catholica said:
As one who accepts them, I agree on both counts. That is why I am eager to learn what I can of the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD Septuagint.

Even many protestants and most secular sources on LXX agree that it is generally known to have contained the deuterocanonical books, but the admitted “loophole” is that it seems that not all of them did.

Is that where we’re at with a point of agreement?
Click to expand...
The way I understand it is that the septuagint undoubtedly contained the deuteros as you call them, but it also contained several other books that neither one of us believe are inspired.

I did not know that some copies of the LXX omit the deuteros.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top