Paul did not use the Septuagint nor did Jesus or any of His apostles

[YADA]

They only used the Septuagint to make their translation easier since they weren’t educated men. They just assumed that the Jews would go home and look to their Hebrew Old Testament to verify what the inspired passage should actually read, they didn’t expect them just to acccept the uninspired greek quote.
Again, this was only done because it was easier and quicker than actually translating Hebrew into Greek. No one with an education such as mine really believes that they actually used the Septuagint.

Please tell me you are just joking … that you do not really believe what you wrote here …

 

[patrick457]

They only used the Septuagint to make their translation easier since they weren’t educated men. They just assumed that the Jews would go home and look to their Hebrew Old Testament to verify what the inspired passage should actually read, they didn’t expect them just to acccept the uninspired greek quote.
Again, this was only done because it was easier and quicker than actually translating Hebrew into Greek. No one with an education such as mine really believes that they actually used the Septuagint.

The problem with the above statement:

1.) Not all Jews would have owned a copy of the Tanakh, much less be able to read it.

2.) By the 1st century, Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew that the Bible is written in) came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of Hebrew (Mishnaic Hebrew) and a local version of Aramaic (Judeo-Aramaic); in fact in Synagogue services of the Mishnaic period an Aramaic translation of the Tanakh (called a Targum) was recited alternately with the original Hebrew by a translator called a Methurgeman. At first this was probably done only for the more difficult passages, but as time went on, for the entire text.

The Targum was originally not supposed to be written down. This prohibition, however, probably referred only to the interpretation given in the synagogue and did not apply to private use or to its employment in study. In any case, written Targums must have existed at an early date. Thus, for instance, one on the Book of Job is mentioned in the era of Gamaliel I (middle of the first century A.D.), which he, however, was not willing to recognize.

 

[runandsew]

Sorry that I didn’t put a smily face on that post, I was joking.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry that I didn’t put a smily face on that post, I was joking.

Ah, humor! Har! Har! Har!!! :clapping:

Uh… how do we know that you are not joking now and were serious last night? :ehh:

 

[toaslan]

Well, isn’t the “Acts of Moses” referenced in Jude’s Epistle. I don’t think canonicity depends on quotations.

Also, the woman in one of the Maccabees who had all 7 of her children tortured in front of her - isn’t this story referenced by Jesus, if not quoted directly? There are numerous other references, that can be traced to the Deuteros, but no exact quotes that I’ve found.

Do you have these citations? The Mormons Are Coming! Help!

 

[Spirithound]

Sorry that I didn’t put a smily face on that post, I was joking.

understood

 

[toaslan]

Well, isn’t the “Acts of Moses” referenced in Jude’s Epistle. I don’t think canonicity depends on quotations.

NotWorthy–Thanks, please,** is this what you mean?**: Jude 9 When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. 10 What is the “Acts of Moses”?

Also, the woman in one of the Maccabees who had all 7 of her children tortured in front of her - isn’t this story referenced by Jesus, if not quoted directly? There are numerous other references, that can be traced to the Deuteros, but no exact quotes that I’ve found.

Thanks, is this story referenced by Jesus Himself? I see from Mijac’s list that it comes up in Hebrews:

Mijac:

Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. 2 Maccabees 7:1-42

which is: *The glorious martyrdom of the seven brethren and their mother.

1 It came to pass also, that seven brethren, together with their mother, were apprehended, and compelled by the king to eat swine’s flesh against the law, for which end they were tormented with whips and scourges. 2 But one of them, who was the eldest, said thus: What wouldst thou ask, or learn of us? we are ready to die rather than to transgress the laws of God, received from our fathers. 3 Then the king being angry commanded fryingpans, and brazen caldrons to be made hot: which forthwith being heated, 4 He commanded to cut out the tongue of him that had spoken first: and the skin of his head being drawn off, to chop off also the extremities of his hands and feet, the rest of his brethren, and his mother, looking on. 5 And when he was now maimed in all parts, he commanded him, being yet alive, to be brought to the Are, and to be fried in the fryingpan: and while he was suffering therein long torments, the rest, together with the mother, exhorted one another to die manfully,* etc…

 

[gentlefaith]

Everybody, the Mormons (who embrace as infallible the KJV) are coming to our apologetics class tomorrow night on Mormonism.

the Mormons belive in the KJV bible “in so far as it is translated correctly.”

Joseph Smith had started making changes in the KJV bible to correct the errors. He was not able to finish the incorrect texts due to his death.

 

[toaslan]

In **the Original 1611 King James Version we find eleven New Testament verses that the Protestant translators felt were quotes from “Apocrypha” books, and in the margin notes they cross-referenced them as such. **

Mijac, great, thanks! Now, where are you getting this great stuff from: do yu have a 1611 KJV on your bookshelf? I.e., is there a ready source I can refer others to?

It is very interesting that the 1611 referenced these deuterocanonicals for these NT verses. For my specifice purposes today (Mormons are due to visit our apologetics class tonight) I will now look at your verses with an eye just to the tightness of the connection between the NT and the deuterocanonicals, leaving aside the protestant opinion as to that connection.

1) Mat 6:7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
Ecclesiasticus 7:13 Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.

great.

2) Mat 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?
4 Esdras 1:30 So haue I gathered you, as the henne her chickenes vnder her winges. But now what shal I doe to you? I wil throw you from my face.

super

3) (Matt. 23:37)
Mat 27:43He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.

This is confusing, mijac. What’s up?

**4) **And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. Tobit 4:16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.

missing NT referent?

5) John 10:22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. 1 Maccabees 4:59
And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness. (Hanakah)

this one wouldn’t seem very watertight to me…Need this reference in John 10 rest solely on Maccabees? Is Hanakah instituted somewhere else in the OT? This can’t be the only place, because the Jews threw out Maccabees but kept Hanakah…

6) Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?
Wisdom 15:7 The potter also tempering soft earth, with labour fashioneth every vessel for our service, and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge

a really good one

7) Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
Wisdom 9:13 For who among men is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of God is?

another sound one

8) 2 Cor 9:7 Every one as he hath determined in his heart, not with sadness or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Ecclesiasticus 35:9 The sacrifice of the just is acceptable, and the Lord will not forget the memorial thereof.

hmmm. I sure wish I could ask that 1611 footnoter why he made this connection.

9) Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high:
Wisdom 7:27 And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things, and through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets

good one

10) Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. 2 Maccabees 7:1-42

another good one.

Mijac, you said eleven, but I only see 10 cross references here. Is there another one?

Also, what about the questions on 3) and 4) above?

Thanks so much!

 

[toaslan]

the Mormons belive in the KJV bible “in so far as it is translated correctly.”

Joseph Smith had started making changes in the KJV bible to correct the errors. He was not able to finish the incorrect texts due to his death.

You’re right, gentlefaith. I haven’t yet figured out what this “quibble” actually amounts to, i.e. if it has resulted in an actually-different version of the bible in the hands of the Mormon on the street or not. That is, do they really have the KJV or not? don’t know, but I am also reviewing some mormon threads in the non-Catholic religions forum…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ah, demand that he produce Jewish sources concering his claim of hebrew vs greek canon. No such evidence exists.

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

It appears that the universal languages were Aramaic, Latin and Greek. Hebrew may have been spoken in the Temple. Since, Jesus was Jewish and he grew up in a heavy trade area it is likely he knew all four languages and could have spoken in any of these languages at any time. Since, you and I were not there we can only argue from silence what language he used for any given speech or teaching period.

 

[peary]

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

It appears that the universal languages were Aramaic, Latin and Greek. Hebrew may have been spoken in the Temple. Since, Jesus was Jewish and he grew up in a heavy trade area it is likely he knew all four languages and could have spoken in any of these languages at any time. Since, you and I were not there we can only argue from silence what language he used for any given speech or teaching period.

One would expect that Jesus spoke Aramaic and quite possibly Greek since that was the secondary language of the empire. Latin was the third in that part of the world. And it is a given that he would have spoken Hebrew in the synagogues when reading the scriptures. Yes, again, I wasn’t there so I don’t know.

 

[toaslan]

Ah, demand that he produce Jewish sources concering his claim of hebrew vs greek canon. No such evidence exists.

And that claim is, taken from the OP: that nobody used the Septuagint–Jesus, Paul, the other writers used the smaller Hebrew-based-only OT collection. Proof rests on the order in which Jesus et al cites OT data: that it’s not the order reflected in the Septuagint but in the Hebrew-only version of the OT. Right?

Daniel Marsh: you are attacking this by saying, show me the Jewish authors who allege this? Well, why would a Jew have to allege it for it to be of merit?

Daniel:

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

It appears that the universal languages were Aramaic, Latin and Greek. Hebrew may have been spoken in the Temple. Since, Jesus was Jewish and he grew up in a heavy trade area it is likely he knew all four languages and could have spoken in any of these languages at any time. Since, you and I were not there we can only argue from silence what language he used for any given speech or teaching period.

Thanks for the very apropros quote from John 19.

 

[GreenLantern]

First off, Jesus spoke hebrew and not greek.

He spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hebrew ceased to be an everyday language among Jews around the 1st millenium BC.

Seeing as how Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Medditeranean, I would bet that Jesus spoke that to.

 

[mijac]

Re: Paul did not use the Septuagint nor did Jesus or any of His apostles

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by mijac
In the Original 1611 King James Version we find eleven New Testament verses that the Protestant translators felt were quotes from “Apocrypha” books, and in the margin notes they cross-referenced them as such.

Mijac, great, thanks! Now, where are you getting this great stuff from: do yu have a 1611 KJV on your bookshelf? I.e., is there a ready source I can refer others to?

I have a reproduction of the 1611 KJV which I purchased a few years ago. I believe you can get it ChristianBook.com 1800-247-4784
The Original 1611 KJV very enlightening for its notes, for its bible study year long bible study which included a number of the deuterocannicol books as part of the Year long bible study. footnotes to Luke 1:28 the verse read highly favored one, its notes stated could be translated as much graced. Listed the Holy days and feast days for the saints…ect. My what web ultimately is created as none of this stuff in in the modern day KJV…

Quote:
3) (Matt. 23:37)
Mat 27:43He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.
**Wisdom 2:15-16
He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different. **

We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
This is confusing, mijac. What’s up?

Quote:
Luke 6:31 4) And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. Tobit 4:16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.

missing NT referent?

Quote:
5) John 10:22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. 1 Maccabees 4:59
And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness. (Hanakah)

this one wouldn’t seem very watertight to me…Need this reference in John 10 rest solely on Maccabees? Is Hanakah instituted somewhere else in the OT? This can’t be the only place, because the Jews threw out Maccabees but kept Hanakah…

The feast Hanakah is only referenced here in John 10:22 and in 1 Maccabees. There is no other reference to Hanakah in the OT, The feast is based soley on the rejected cannon of Maccabees?? enlightening isn’t it.???

Thanks so much!

 

[LCJ]

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Sorry, but I must point out that John 19:20 actually says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin:

Latin Vulgate (Clementine): Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

Douay-Rheims (1611): This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where JESUS was crucified, was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Douay-Rheims, revised by Bp. Challoner: This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

King James Version: This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

New King James Version: Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, [and] Latin.

ERB: This title, therefore, read many of the Jews, because, near, was the place to the city where Jesus was crucified; ad it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

 

[SFH]

Here is a response from a Protestant friend. Will someone help me with a response for him.

No paul did not use the septuagint nor did Jesus or any of His apostles, for the following reasons:

Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Mat. 5:18), and this refers specifically and solely to the Hebrew language. the ST is in Greek.

Jesus referred to the Old Testament by its Hebrew division rather than by its Greek division. Following are two evidences:

In Luke 24:44 He referred to the things “which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning me.” This is precisely the order of the Old Testament in Hebrew, but in the Greek Old Testament the order is the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as in the English Bible.

When Jesus referred to the first and last prophets that were martyred in the Old Testament, He referred to them by the order of the Hebrew Text rather than by the order of the Greek Septuagint. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Mat. 23:35). By this statement, the Lord Jesus charged the Jewish leaders with the deaths of the prophets throughout the Old Testament age, and He used the Hebrew canon. Abel was killed in Genesis (chapter 4) and Zacharias in 2 Chronicles (24:20-22). This follows the order of the Hebrew Old Testament, which begins with Genesis and ends with 2 Chronicles, as does the English. The Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, ends with the prophets (concluding with Malachi) and with some apocryphal books.

And, orthodox Jews did not accept the deuterocanonicals as scripture and they are not quoted from in the NT while evry other book is.

Thank you.

Baloney! St. Paul used the Septuagint; that is why Jacob worships the bed rather than the staff of Joseph in St. Paul’s account. St. Matthew used the Septuagint; that is why a “virgin shall conceive” instead of a “young woman.” St. Luke used the Septuagint; that is why he has the crowd quote from the book of Wisdom during the crucifixion.

The Early Church Fathers used the Septuagint or a translation based on the Septuagint (with the notable exception of St. Jerome). Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept (with some minor additions by the Eastern Orthodox) the fuller canon contained in the Septuagint. It’s only the Protestants who reject the fuller canon. And they’re so new to Christianity, that it’s hard to take them seriously as a source of authority on what the Apostles thought.

Catholic Church = Preaching Christianity for 2,008 years.
Protestants = Preaching Luther and Calvin for about 500 years.

 

[SFH]

Sorry, but I must point out that John 19:20 actually says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin:

Latin Vulgate (Clementine): Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

Douay-Rheims (1611): This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where JESUS was crucified, was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Douay-Rheims, revised by Bp. Challoner: This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

King James Version: This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

New King James Version: Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, [and] Latin.

ERB: This title, therefore, read many of the Jews, because, near, was the place to the city where Jesus was crucified; ad it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

Contemporary writings of the Gospels show that people often referred to Aramaic as “Hebrew” – But you’re probably right. Since Hebrew was taught in the synagogue to young Jewish men, it’s probably more likely it was Hebrew rather than Aramaic.

 

[peary]

Sorry, but I must point out that John 19:20 actually says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin:

Latin Vulgate (Clementine): Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

Douay-Rheims (1611): This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where JESUS was crucified, was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Douay-Rheims, revised by Bp. Challoner: This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

King James Version: This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

New King James Version: Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, [and] Latin.

ERB: This title, therefore, read many of the Jews, because, near, was the place to the city where Jesus was crucified; ad it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

I posted from Daniel’s post. Take it up with him.

 

[NotWorthy]

And that claim is, taken from the OP: that nobody used the Septuagint–Jesus, Paul, the other writers used the smaller Hebrew-based-only OT collection. Proof rests on the order in which Jesus et al cites OT data: that it’s not the order reflected in the Septuagint but in the Hebrew-only version of the OT. Right?

Daniel Marsh: you are attacking this by saying, show me the Jewish authors who allege this? Well, why would a Jew have to allege it for it to be of merit?

What Daniel is appropriately saying is that there was no fixed canon. This original claim of a fixed canon has no foundation.