G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Those are not quotes. Those are parallels, and they are different from quotes.
It’s not a dealbreaker, because the New Testament does not quote all the protocanonical books either. You will not see any quotes from Obadiah, Nahum or Esther, but no one disputes those books. The “quote test” is simply invalid, for both Catholics and Protestants.
P
patrick457
Guest
Exactly. The whole “Jesus used the Septuagint” is really an oversimplification - to be frank it’s even a bit ridiculous. The fact stands that we don’t have books or tapes or videos made by Jesus Himself - so how can one say “Jesus used the Septuagint” if you’ve even never heard Him speak personally? What we only have are the writings left by people who knew Jesus (and people who knew people who knew Jesus), written in a language different from what the historical Jesus would have spoken in everyday life (most likely Aramaic). So just as you say, to say “the NT authors often used the Septuagint when they needed to cite or allude to Scripture” is more accurate. Even today, whenever we cite Scripture, most of us wouldn’t bother translating the original texts on our own, right? Very often we would just often cite from particular translations (or sometimes, if we are familiar enough with the passage, we go by memory - very often using the wording of one or more preexisting translations). That’s what the sacred authors did.I keep hearing that argument from Catholics, that Jesus either quoted or used the LXX. There is no basis for this claim. As a Palestinian Jew, Jesus would have used the Hebrew. Even if Galilee were multicultural as it were, Greek would not be the vernacular of the region for the Jews.
What IS true, is that the New Testament AUTHORS quoted from the LXX, which makes sense, because the NT books were written in Greek, and so it was only logical to quote the prevailing Greek text at the time.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Points here are well substantiated from different perspectives…but Jesus did refer a number of times to Himself fulfilling Scripture…and it is the Holy Spirit in the communion of faith that we follow.
There was a thread here going so far back where there was a discussion regarding the Septuagint vs the Mazoretic texts…and the points made also reflected the reality of human existence, how we are bound by our own faith traditions but absorb and integrate other interpretations.
We have to look at the timeline and see that the Septuagint tradition of interpretation came about 200 years before Christ, and the former, 200 years following…and we as Catholics draw to what is the truth of Who Jesus is and His mission to us that is fulfilled in His death and resurrection.
There was a thread here going so far back where there was a discussion regarding the Septuagint vs the Mazoretic texts…and the points made also reflected the reality of human existence, how we are bound by our own faith traditions but absorb and integrate other interpretations.
We have to look at the timeline and see that the Septuagint tradition of interpretation came about 200 years before Christ, and the former, 200 years following…and we as Catholics draw to what is the truth of Who Jesus is and His mission to us that is fulfilled in His death and resurrection.
E
Even_So
Guest
We aren’t talking about Jesus? Please read post #1 again. My point is Jesus Christ could speak any language. If Jesus was the Word, excuse me, is the Word, then He didn’t quote any scripture. He is the Scripture! Amen?! The scriptures came from God thru Jesus and the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:1, Acts 10:36). If you are saying the interpretations in different languages are not one and the same, that i believe. And what about worshiping my Bible? How did you come up with that? I will in return ask what the the Bible’s purpose is?And this comment of yours has to to do with this topic exactly how?
We are not talking about Jesus, but about the scriptures and they are not one and the same and to infer such is tantamount to deifying the Bible?
Do you worship your Bible?
E
Even_So
Guest
Maybe Jesus was born with little to no omniscience, but many knew he was Savior of the world. I’m sure Jesus was taught well and right from childhood, but certainly He was no ordinary child. If there is an age of accountability, it’s 12 years old. At that point, our young Master had much of the knowledge He needed (Luke 2:40-52). Mark 1:21-27, specifically verse 22, means he did not read scripture to teach. Why would Christ need it except to correct it? He recited what was written and taught more seeing as He was one with God and They were the Authors.Christ was not born with God-like omniscience. He subdued His divine nature to live as we live. That means He learned how to speak the languages of the time, learned from the teachers of the time, and quoted the sources from which He learned.
Regarding the topic, Jesus and the apostles did use the Septuagint. While Hebrew scriptures existed, there was no Hebrew canon. The Hebrew Bible was only canonized by the Masoretes centuries later.
E
ezeekl
Guest
The whole issue of the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures having different number of books seems a bit ridiculous to me. What I mean is, if,as we are told the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew then where did the Deuterocanonicals come from if not the Hebrew scriptures? They are in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew. Could they have been expunged at some time after the Septuagint translation. I know there was this alleged Council of Jamnia supposedly late in the first century AD wherein some say the Jewish rabbi’s eliminated those OT books that were not written in Hebrew. I am not sure there was such a council and the scholars seem to be split on it. Yet I have never heard any allegation from anyone that the Deuteros were added at some later date. If that is the case, that they were not added later, then they had to have been in the Jewish scriptures when the translation into the Greek was done and afterwards expunged from the Jewish scriptures.
There is no need to find some “lost” Hebrew for some books. Textual criticism can tell us to a reasonable degree of accuracy that some Deuterocanonicals were written in Hebrew and translated to Greek (Tobit, Sirach, 1 Maccabees), and others were definitely originally in Greek (Wisdom, 2 Maccabees).The whole issue of the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures having different number of books seems a bit ridiculous to me. What I mean is, if,as we are told the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew then where did the Deuterocanonicals come from if not the Hebrew scriptures? They are in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew. Could they have been expunged at some time after the Septuagint translation. I know there was this alleged Council of Jamnia supposedly late in the first century AD wherein some say the Jewish rabbi’s eliminated those OT books that were not written in Hebrew. I am not sure there was such a council and the scholars seem to be split on it. Yet I have never heard any allegation from anyone that the Deuteros were added at some later date. If that is the case, that they were not added later, then they had to have been in the Jewish scriptures when the translation into the Greek was done and afterwards expunged from the Jewish scriptures.
That a book was written in Hebrew is not a requirement for canonicity.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Correct. But my point is how did the deuteros get into the Septuagint. If the septuagint was a translation ofthe scriptures the Jews used in 200 BC then it stands to reason, absent any other cause, that the Deuteros were included in those scriptures. I, for one, have never heard any scholar allege that the Deuteros were added to the Septuagint at some later date.That a book was written in Hebrew is not a requirement for canonicity.
P
patrick457
Guest
Here’s the thing. The Septuagint as we know it is really a collection of different translations made during different dates. The books were not translated as a set, instead different Greek translations of sacred Jewish literature were at some point collected together to form what we now call ‘the Septuagint’. The Torah section is the oldest of the Greek translations (ca. 3rd century BC) - in fact, the term ‘Septuagint’ originally referred specifically to this translation of the Torah. (It was Christian writers who extended the term to mean ‘Greek translations of Scriptural books’ as a whole.) Most of the other books were made between that time up to at least the late 2nd to the beginning of the 1st century BC.Correct. But my point is how did the deuteros get into the Septuagint. If the septuagint was a translation ofthe scriptures the Jews used in 200 BC then it stands to reason, absent any other cause, that the Deuteros were included in those scriptures. I, for one, have never heard any scholar allege that the Deuteros were added to the Septuagint at some later date.
Also you have to remember that the idea of putting all the books considered to be sacred in a single volume, between two covers, is still centuries later: not only was the codex or the book not invented yet (as you know, they had scrolls), but each book/s were really kept in different scrolls. So you had say, one scroll for the Torah (or one for each books of the Torah), one for the Psalms, stuff like that. You didn’t have a tome; you had a library, a stash of scrolls. It was probably only around the 3rd-4th century AD - when codex-making technology had advanced to the point that such a feat was possible - that all the Greek biblical works were properly collected together.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Around 90% of the New Testament citations of OT verses are direct Septuagint quotes.I have been reading about Bible history and the argument about whether or not Christ quoted from the Septuagint or the Hebrew scriptures. One answer I read indicated that Christ quoted from the book of Wisdom and I would like to find this quote. Can you help me? I would like to be able to defend the Church position on these books which Protestants believe were “added” by the Church. Thanks so much!
E
ezeekl
Guest
Allwelland good but you missed the point. The point is not when these writings wer bound together into a Book (Biblia). Rather, the question is were the Deuteros considered sacred writings before the christian era or after. If they were included in the Septuagint before the christian era then where did they come from if not the Jewish scriptures?Here’s the thing. The Septuagint as we know it is really a collection of different translations made during different dates. The books were not translated as a set, instead different Greek translations of sacred Jewish literature were at some point collected together to form what we now call ‘the Septuagint’. The Torah section is the oldest of the Greek translations (ca. 3rd century BC) - in fact, the term ‘Septuagint’ originally referred specifically to this translation of the Torah. (It was Christian writers who extended the term to mean ‘Greek translations of Scriptural books’ as a whole.) Most of the other books were made between that time up to at least the late 2nd to the beginning of the 1st century BC.
Also you have to remember that the idea of putting all the books considered to be sacred in a single volume, between two covers, is still centuries later: not only was the codex or the book not invented yet (as you know, they had scrolls), but each book/s were really kept in different scrolls. So you had say, one scroll for the Torah (or one for each books of the Torah), one for the Psalms, stuff like that. You didn’t have a tome; you had a library, a stash of scrolls. It was probably only around the 3rd-4th century AD - when codex-making technology had advanced to the point that such a feat was possible - that all the Greek biblical works were properly collected together.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.