J
jttierney1
Guest
Does any one know how many times the septuagint OT was quoted from versus the hebrew OT? And maybe a list of those quotes? or proof of?
Thanks and Peace in Christ,
Jack
Thanks and Peace in Christ,
Jack
- Status
L
LRThunder
Guest
I think the Septuagint was around before the Hebrew OT. Didn’t the Hebrew OT (the non-Septuagint OT) come about around 70 AD or after?
R
runandsew
Guest
I have heard that 300 of the 350 old testament quotes are from the Septuagint. And that is why when you read a quote in the new testament, and look it up in the old testament it is worded differently.
But when the most famous quote about the virgin (Septuagint) vs. the young woman (Hebrew), and I look it up in the old testaments of all the new testament bibles available today (except the RSV), they have translated the Hebrew word “almah” into virgin in Isaiah 7:14.
Hebrew term “almah” which means Young woman can be argued to also mean virgin, but this could be discussed in another thread.
But when the most famous quote about the virgin (Septuagint) vs. the young woman (Hebrew), and I look it up in the old testaments of all the new testament bibles available today (except the RSV), they have translated the Hebrew word “almah” into virgin in Isaiah 7:14.
Hebrew term “almah” which means Young woman can be argued to also mean virgin, but this could be discussed in another thread.
J
jttierney1
Guest
They were both quoted from in the NT. The Septuagint is a greek translation of the OT which has several different book than the Hebrew OT. The Hebrew came before the Septuagint. Both of which are quoted from in the NT.
J
jttierney1
Guest
Thanks that’s what I was looking for.
Do you happen to know where you read that from?
R
runandsew
Guest
I am not sure where I have read it, but I have heard it on many of the apologetic CD’s I have listened to.Thanks that’s what I was looking for.
Do you happen to know where you read that from?
Even James White admits in the debates I have listened to that the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, but he won’t admit that it is the Bible version they used, and that the deuterocanonical books are inspired.
I know that the book where we got the bible by rev. Henry G Graham mentions that they quoted from it, but he doesn’t have the number of times they did. Here is an interesting site with a lot in stats about the old testament quotes, I don’t know how reliable it is but it looked pretty interesting if you are into stats.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them “bread” out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our “report?” Hebrew - who has believed our “message?”
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes…turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes…and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and “vapor” of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and “pillars” or “columns” of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw…tongue rejoiced…dwell in hope… Hebrew - I have set…glory rejoiced…dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers “were gathered together.” Hebrew - rulers “take counsel together.”
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - “seventy” people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses “ruler” and judge; killed the Egyptian “yesterday.” Hebrew - uses “prince” and there is no reference to “yesterday.”
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of “Moloch” and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - “your king,” shrine, and star of your god.
Source: scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
S
Subrosa
Guest
The Orthodox Church in America is nearly finished with a Septuagint translation which will be made into a study bible.
On this website, lxx.org/qa_d1.htm, in the FAQ section they claim that the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint exclusively. You will find this claim in the left-hand column of the posted page.
What they claim makes sense when one considers the reality that most, if not all of the Mediteranian world at that time spoke Greek. This is not to say that other languages were not spoken. It is just that Greek was the common language, a legacy of Alexander the Great who ruled about 300 years earlier. The evangelists would have, of course, used the Greek version to teach from.
The Catholic Church itself accepts the Alexandrian (Greek) canon and not the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. This means that the Church accepts the Septuagint as the founding document that is scripture.
Subrosa
On this website, lxx.org/qa_d1.htm, in the FAQ section they claim that the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint exclusively. You will find this claim in the left-hand column of the posted page.
What they claim makes sense when one considers the reality that most, if not all of the Mediteranian world at that time spoke Greek. This is not to say that other languages were not spoken. It is just that Greek was the common language, a legacy of Alexander the Great who ruled about 300 years earlier. The evangelists would have, of course, used the Greek version to teach from.
The Catholic Church itself accepts the Alexandrian (Greek) canon and not the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. This means that the Church accepts the Septuagint as the founding document that is scripture.
Subrosa
J
Janet_S
Guest
This is from the Catholic Enclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
“the New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the Septuagint; out of the 350 texts from the Old Testament, 300 favour the language of the Greek version rather than that of the Hebrew.”
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
“the New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the Septuagint; out of the 350 texts from the Old Testament, 300 favour the language of the Greek version rather than that of the Hebrew.”
S
scriabin
Guest
Slightly off-topic:
Aren’t the OT titles of the Pentateuch we use in our bibles today from the Greek Septaguant?
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deutoronomy, etc. --Are these Greek words?
Aren’t the OT titles of the Pentateuch we use in our bibles today from the Greek Septaguant?
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deutoronomy, etc. --Are these Greek words?
D
Deacon_Joseph
Guest
Genesis is Greek, it means origins. When the book was copied it was given this title. I think Exodus is Latin, but I could be wrong on that one.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi Manny,
I was wondering if you knew the NT verses that were quoted from the apocrypha since I dont have them in my bible.
R
runandsew
Guest
well, I guess we could quote some new testament quotes of “oral traditions” which are not in the Old Testament.Hi Manny,
I was wondering if you knew the NT verses that were quoted from the apocrypha since I dont have them in my bible.
The rock which Moses struck that flowed with water. which “followed” the Jews in the desert
If the apocrypha books were in the Septuagint, and they quoted from the Septuagint, but not from those perticular books, I don’t think that means that those books shouldn’t be in the canon.
C
colliric
Guest
There is no verse in the NT which directly quotes from Apocrypha. There is however in Hebrews 11:35 a short hand description of an event which only occurred in the book of 2 Maccabees chapter 7. This is the strongest argument.Hi Manny,
I was wondering if you knew the NT verses that were quoted from the apocrypha since I dont have them in my bible.
There are other “references” to apocrypha doctrine, like the seven angels/Saints in Revelation, which rather clearly refers indirectly to Tobit 12:15.
Certainly aligned with the fact that the NT quotes specifically from the Septuagint this is a strong argument for the authenticity of the catholic canon.
Here is an interesting web article which gives the catholic point of view, and gives it exceptional weight:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM
J
Janet_S
Guest
By apocrypha, do you mean the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I & II Maccabees)? When Catholics refer to the apocrypha, they are usually referring to the early Christian writings that are not included in the New Testament (NT) canon (for example the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions.) The following is an explanation of what the apocrypha means from a Catholic perspective:Hi Manny,
I was wondering if you knew the NT verses that were quoted from the apocrypha since I dont have them in my bible.
newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Also, is it your claim that because the deuterocanonical books are not quoted in the NT, they should not be considered canonical? If this is your claim, you should look at the following website:
A list of Old Testament (OT) books quoted by Jesus and other NT writers.
bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm
According to this list (from a Protestant website), there are 12 OT books (accepted by both Catholics and Protestants) that are not quoted in the NT. They are: Esther, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Nehemiah. If you say that the deuterocanonical books cannot be considered a part of the OT since they are not quoted in the NT, then following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the twelve other OT books—such as the Song of Solomon—that are also not quoted in the NT. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the NT does not suggest that a book is not inspired.
Once again, I am not sure if this is the point you were trying to make when you asked for NT quotes of “apocrypha.” However, I have seen this argument from Protestants before to try to rationalize why they are missing 7 books from their Bibles.
C
colliric
Guest
Also once again let me mention that there is deutrocanon derived doctrine specifically mentioned in the NT in the book of Revelation. And once again Hebrews 11:35 which references 2 Maccabees CH 7.
This deserves to be mentioned twice because it is the strongest argument for the catholic canon.
Y
YADA
Guest
In addition to the other “very good” points mentioned, I’ll add this point:
In the liturgy of the church, that is the “public work” of the church which is the people of God, praying unxeasingly [as in praying the hours which is mentioned in the New Testament] and in celebrating the Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist [the Mass], the Septuagint [Greek Text] has been used since the earliest gatherings of Christians. The writings of early Christians give testimony to this fact. Sirach and the Book of Wisdom being two that come to mind…if it was the practice of the early Church to find inspiration in these writings, then who are we to disagree?
Also, many of the earliest Protestant Bibles included the now disputed texts. Why did they do that Also, that Martin Luther questioned New Testament Books [Revelation, 1st Timothy, etc] illutrates that it was Protestantism that played rather ‘fast and loose’ with 1500 years [approx.] of Christian practice [dare I say Tradition?].
In the liturgy of the church, that is the “public work” of the church which is the people of God, praying unxeasingly [as in praying the hours which is mentioned in the New Testament] and in celebrating the Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist [the Mass], the Septuagint [Greek Text] has been used since the earliest gatherings of Christians. The writings of early Christians give testimony to this fact. Sirach and the Book of Wisdom being two that come to mind…if it was the practice of the early Church to find inspiration in these writings, then who are we to disagree?
Also, many of the earliest Protestant Bibles included the now disputed texts. Why did they do that Also, that Martin Luther questioned New Testament Books [Revelation, 1st Timothy, etc] illutrates that it was Protestantism that played rather ‘fast and loose’ with 1500 years [approx.] of Christian practice [dare I say Tradition?].
J
Janet_S
Guest
The following website has a list of the major Church pronouncements on the Bible:
catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm
Note that at the Church Councils of Rome in AD 382, of Hippo in AD 393, of Carthage in AD 397, of Carthage in AD 419, of Florence in AD 1441, and of Trent in AD 1545 the Church consistently listed the OT (with the 7 deuterocanonical books) and NT books that Catholics have in their Bibles today.
You can find the documents online from the Council of Carthage AD 419, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent. What I noticed: These three councils have canons which include the 27 NT books we now have in our Bibles (both Catholics and Protestants). Regarding the OT canons in these councils, the Council of Carthage has 44 OT books (Baruch and Lamentations is missing). Florence and Trent have 45 OT books (Lamentations is missing). Catholic Bibles today have 46 OT books. The books of Lamentations and Baruch were included at times in the book of Jeremiah, so this explains why they were not listed in the Church Council documents. Anyway, there is clear evidence that the Church has accepted the 7 deutercanonical books as “inspired” since at least the 4th century.
When Luther wrote his translation of the Bible, he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from the OT canon and placed them in an appendix. In spite of Luther’s motives, which may have been genuine, he was still breaking with hundreds of years of Church tradition by rejecting these books. By making this unprecedented change in the canon of Scripture, Luther, who himself rejected papal authority, took on more authority than any Pope had previously.
I challenge anyone to:
It is a commonly believed myth that Catholics added the 7 “apocryphal” books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. There is no evidence that I have found to support this myth. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that Luther removed these books and put them in an appendix. Most Protestant Bibles today do not contain these books even in an appendix. Who dispensed with historical Christianity? It wasn’t the Catholics.
catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm
Note that at the Church Councils of Rome in AD 382, of Hippo in AD 393, of Carthage in AD 397, of Carthage in AD 419, of Florence in AD 1441, and of Trent in AD 1545 the Church consistently listed the OT (with the 7 deuterocanonical books) and NT books that Catholics have in their Bibles today.
You can find the documents online from the Council of Carthage AD 419, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent. What I noticed: These three councils have canons which include the 27 NT books we now have in our Bibles (both Catholics and Protestants). Regarding the OT canons in these councils, the Council of Carthage has 44 OT books (Baruch and Lamentations is missing). Florence and Trent have 45 OT books (Lamentations is missing). Catholic Bibles today have 46 OT books. The books of Lamentations and Baruch were included at times in the book of Jeremiah, so this explains why they were not listed in the Church Council documents. Anyway, there is clear evidence that the Church has accepted the 7 deutercanonical books as “inspired” since at least the 4th century.
When Luther wrote his translation of the Bible, he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from the OT canon and placed them in an appendix. In spite of Luther’s motives, which may have been genuine, he was still breaking with hundreds of years of Church tradition by rejecting these books. By making this unprecedented change in the canon of Scripture, Luther, who himself rejected papal authority, took on more authority than any Pope had previously.
I challenge anyone to:
- Show me any Catholic Church Council documents after the 4th century up to the time of the Council of Trent (when the canon was officially closed by the Catholic Church) that exclude the 7 deuterocanonical books.
- Show me a Bible from the time before the reformation (AD 1513) that excludes the 7 deutercanonical books from the OT canon. The Gutenberg Bible from AD 1455 is available online, and it contains these 7 books in its OT canon.
It is a commonly believed myth that Catholics added the 7 “apocryphal” books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. There is no evidence that I have found to support this myth. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that Luther removed these books and put them in an appendix. Most Protestant Bibles today do not contain these books even in an appendix. Who dispensed with historical Christianity? It wasn’t the Catholics.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Thank you all for your answers. I believe Manny or someone had said that Jesus did quote some things from the apocrypha(yes the 7 extra books in the OT) in the NT. I just wanted to know what they were.
I was not looking to debate the issue at all.
Thank you
Thank you all for your answers. I believe Manny or someone had said that Jesus did quote some things from the apocrypha(yes the 7 extra books in the OT) in the NT. I just wanted to know what they were.
I was not looking to debate the issue at all.
Thank you
- Status