Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The LXX used as the OT for Christians

Expand Messages
  • kg6gjr
    ... Kevin, I appreciate your prompt answer. I also appreciate your candor in the matter. My research has shown that there is a good deal of truth to the faith
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2009
      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin P. Edgecomb" <kevin@...> wrote:
      >
      > Quoting Michael <kg6gjr@...>:
      > > Should the MT text be used as our OT, or should LXX be used? Should
      > > the base be the MT with the LXX supplementary, or should the LXX be
      > > the base text with the MT used supplementary? I do agree that
      > > Hebrew was the original language of the OT, but which text is closer
      > > to that original Hebrew?
      >
      > I write,
      > Michael, this is more of a matter of the practices of individual
      > churches than it is something that can be established for everyone.
      > For Greek Orthodox Christians, the LXX itself is their OT, and the OTs
      > of other Orthodox are based upon it. The OT for Protestant Christians
      > is generally one or more of the various translations based on the
      > Hebrew but taking into account the LXX. The Roman Catholic position
      > is complicated, with both the Latin Vulgate (which is in part merely a
      > Latin translation of the LXX) and (at least in the USA) an English
      > translation of a Hebrew/Latin/Greek mishmash being official OT texts.
      >
      > So, it really depends upon what a particular tradition holds to be
      > proper. There's no "one size fits all" answer.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Kevin P. Edgecomb
      > Berkeley, California
      >
      Kevin,
      I appreciate your prompt answer. I also appreciate your candor in the matter. My research has shown that there is a good deal of truth to the faith group issue. I certainly don't think that either should be left untapped. I should probably read both. I will admit that I enjoy reading the LXX, but this is probably due to the fact that I am better at Greek than Hebrew. It takes extra effort for me to retain Hebrew Vocabulary. I found a vocabulary tutor on line, and it is helping. I also have a Readers Hebrew OT at home. At minimum, the parts of the LXX that are quoted in the NT are inspired, and should be investigated. I also know that the MT is quoted, but with less frequency. It is my understanding that the differences between the MT and the LXX don't undermine any essential christian doctrine. Thanks again for helping me think through this issue.
      Michael
    • Cindy Smith
      I posted a list of New Testament texts that quote or refer to Deuterocanonical texts. I m at work right now, but if someone sends me a reminder, I ll try to
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2009
        I posted a list of New Testament texts that quote or refer to
        Deuterocanonical texts. I'm at work right now, but if someone sends
        me a reminder, I'll try to post the file from home.

        Yours,

        --
        Cindy Smith
        cms@...

        Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!

        A Real Live Catholic in Georgia!


        Quoting patandjimellis <jim@...>:

        > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "patandjimellis" <jim@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> I have heard that one of the reasons we should not accept the
        >> Apocryphal Old Testament books as canonical is because they were
        >> never quoted by Jesus or the Apostles in the New Testament.
        >>
        >> Is there available a list of cross references between Old Testament
        >> Apocrypha verses and their corresponding quote in the New Testament?
        >> ...
        >>
        >
        > A few years ago someone from this list either posted or sent me (I
        > don't remember which) a listing of New Testament passages and their
        > corresponding cross references in the Old Testament apocryphal books
        > but I have no idea where that information is now.
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Sigrid Peterson
        To Patandjimellis: With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2009
          To Patandjimellis:

          With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to
          Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
          Revised Standard Version,* at Hebrews 11:35 for references to Kings and 2
          Maccabees. (I couldn't find my copy so I used Amazon's "Search Inside" to
          locate the page with verse and references.) Also see my paper, written for a
          Feminist Companion, but never used. It's available online at
          http://personlinks.org/Articles. Scroll down to the title "Women Who
          Received Their Dead by Resurrection." All possible cross-references are
          included. The argument of the author of Hebrews, throughout, references
          texts know to Jews/Hebrews from official and unofficial texts.

          I appear not to have raised questions of phrasing in my article, partly
          because the chapter as a whole is a recital of heroes of the Jewish past.
          That's made plain by the first verse of Hebrews 12. For an overview of
          Hebrews 11 see Pamela Eisenbaum's book on *The Jewish Heroes of Christian
          History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context.*

          Best,
          Sigrid Peterson



          Sigrid Peterson,

          PhD
          Instructor
          Department of Religious Studies
          201 Claudia Cohen Hall
          University of Pennsylvania
          Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

          petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
          001-215-275-2740 (Cell)



          On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Kevin P. Edgecomb <kevin@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Quoting patandjimellis <jim@... <jim%40InJesusName.us>>:
          > >> I have heard that one of the reasons we should not accept the
          > >> Apocryphal Old Testament books as canonical is because they were
          > >> never quoted by Jesus or the Apostles in the New Testament.
          > >>
          > >> Is there available a list of cross references between Old Testament
          > >> Apocrypha verses and their corresponding quote in the New Testament?
          > >> ...
          > > A few years ago someone from this list either posted or sent me (I
          > > don't remember which) a listing of New Testament passages and their
          > > corresponding cross references in the Old Testament apocryphal books
          > > but I have no idea where that information is now.
          >
          > Dear Jim,
          > I think that may have been this page of mine, that you mention:
          > http://www.bombaxo.com/allusions.html
          >
          > If direct quotation of an Old Testament book by the New Testament
          > authors is necessary for it to be considered canonical, then there are
          > a number of books commonly considered canonical which aren't.
          >
          > The Coptic and Macedonian Orthodox Churches do not use English
          > continuous text Bible translations, but read from lectionary texts
          > based on original language lectionaries, which would be in Coptic
          > and/or Arabic, and in Slavonic respectively. So far as I know, the
          > Slavonic Bible has never been translated into English. The Coptic
          > Lectionary has been translated into English, but it is a multivolume
          > set which is not inexpensive.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Kevin P. Edgecomb
          > Berkeley, California
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Sigrid Peterson
          To Patandjimellis: With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 1, 2009
            To Patandjimellis:

            With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to
            Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
            Revised Standard Version,* at Hebrews 11:35 for references to Kings and 2
            Maccabees. (I couldn't find my copy so I used Amazon's "Search Inside" to
            locate the page with verse and references.) Also see my paper, written for a
            Feminist Companion, but never used. It's available online at
            http://personlinks.org/Articles. Scroll down to the title "Women Who
            Received Their Dead by Resurrection." All possible cross-references are
            included. The argument of the author of Hebrews, throughout, references
            texts know to Jews/Hebrews from official and unofficial texts.

            I appear not to have raised questions of phrasing in my article, partly
            because the chapter as a whole is a recital of heroes of the Jewish past.
            That's made plain by the first verse of Hebrews 12. For an overview of
            Hebrews 11 see Pamela Eisenbaum's book on *The Jewish Heroes of Christian
            History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context.*

            Best,
            Sigrid Peterson



            Sigrid Peterson,

            PhD
            Instructor
            Department of Religious Studies
            201 Claudia Cohen Hall
            University of Pennsylvania
            Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

            petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
            001-215-275-2740 (Cell)



            On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Kevin P. Edgecomb <kevin@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > Quoting patandjimellis <jim@... <jim%40InJesusName.us>>:
            > >> I have heard that one of the reasons we should not accept the
            > >> Apocryphal Old Testament books as canonical is because they were
            > >> never quoted by Jesus or the Apostles in the New Testament.
            > >>
            > >> Is there available a list of cross references between Old Testament
            > >> Apocrypha verses and their corresponding quote in the New Testament?
            > >> ...
            > > A few years ago someone from this list either posted or sent me (I
            > > don't remember which) a listing of New Testament passages and their
            > > corresponding cross references in the Old Testament apocryphal books
            > > but I have no idea where that information is now.
            >
            > Dear Jim,
            > I think that may have been this page of mine, that you mention:
            > http://www.bombaxo.com/allusions.html
            >
            > If direct quotation of an Old Testament book by the New Testament
            > authors is necessary for it to be considered canonical, then there are
            > a number of books commonly considered canonical which aren't.
            >
            > The Coptic and Macedonian Orthodox Churches do not use English
            > continuous text Bible translations, but read from lectionary texts
            > based on original language lectionaries, which would be in Coptic
            > and/or Arabic, and in Slavonic respectively. So far as I know, the
            > Slavonic Bible has never been translated into English. The Coptic
            > Lectionary has been translated into English, but it is a multivolume
            > set which is not inexpensive.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Kevin P. Edgecomb
            > Berkeley, California
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • patandjimellis
            ... I wasn t very clear in my post. Hebrews 11:35 refers to women who received some one raised from the dead and to others who endured torturing and did not
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 1, 2009
              --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@...> wrote:
              >
              > To Patandjimellis:
              >
              > With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to
              > Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
              > Revised Standard Version,* at Hebrews 11:35 for references to Kings and 2
              > Maccabees. ...

              I wasn't very clear in my post. Hebrews 11:35 refers to women who received some one raised from the dead and to "others" who endured torturing and did not accept deliverance so they could obtain a better resurrection. The first part could apply to 1 Kings 17:17-24 (a miracle of Elijah) and 2 Kings 4:18-37) miracle of Elisha. The latter part of the verse could apply to the story in 2 Maccabees 7:1-41 where a mother and her 7 sons were offered the chance to eat pork and escape death but they refused because of the hope of a better resurrection.
            • Sigrid Peterson
              Exactly so. Those are the references in Hebrews 11.35, found as notes in the NRSV, and elsewhere, for this verse. I think my syntax may have been confused at
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 2, 2009
                Exactly so. Those are the references in Hebrews 11.35, found as notes in the
                NRSV, and elsewhere, for this verse. I think my syntax may have been
                confused at one point, but clearly Hebrews 11.35 refers to Jewish scripture
                (Kings) and the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books (2 Macc 7) and implies,
                perhaps, reference to 4 Macc, where the tortures are descriped explicitly
                and at length.

                Sigrid Peterson

                Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                Instructor
                Department of Religious Studies
                201 Claudia Cohen Hall
                University of Pennsylvania
                Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

                petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
                001-215-275-2740 (Cell)



                On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, patandjimellis <jim@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com <lxx%40yahoogroups.com>, Sigrid Peterson
                > <petersig@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > To Patandjimellis:
                > >
                > > With reference to your third point, about Apocryphal and OT references to
                > > Hebrews 11:35, see the *The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
                > Apocrypha,
                > > Revised Standard Version,* at Hebrews 11:35 for references to Kings and 2
                > > Maccabees. ...
                >
                > I wasn't very clear in my post. Hebrews 11:35 refers to women who received
                > some one raised from the dead and to "others" who endured torturing and did
                > not accept deliverance so they could obtain a better resurrection. The first
                > part could apply to 1 Kings 17:17-24 (a miracle of Elijah) and 2 Kings
                > 4:18-37) miracle of Elisha. The latter part of the verse could apply to the
                > story in 2 Maccabees 7:1-41 where a mother and her 7 sons were offered the
                > chance to eat pork and escape death but they refused because of the hope of
                > a better resurrection.
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Kostas Papadopoulos
                For me, since the Greek text, now found in the LXX we have, was good enough for Luke and Paul and the NT writers in general, is good enough for me too. ...
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 5, 2009
                  For me, since the Greek text, now found in the LXX we have, was good enough for Luke and Paul and the NT writers in general, is good enough for me too.

                  --- Στις Τρίτ., 01/09/09, ο/η kg6gjr <kg6gjr@...> έγραψε:

                  > Από: kg6gjr <kg6gjr@...>
                  > Θέμα: [lxx] The LXX used as the OT for Christians
                  > Προς: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  > Ημερομηνία: Τρίτη, 1 Σεπτέμβριος 2009, 20:07
                  > Hello, my name is Michael, and I am
                  > new to this group. I have recently started researching
                  > issues related to the LXX. I am a Protestant Christian, and
                  > more specifically part of the Calvary Chapel movement. I
                  > mention that so all will know where I am coming from.
                  > Although I can read Hebrew & Greek, I am by no means a
                  > scholar, but I do consider myself a student of scripture. My
                  > training in Bible college taught me that the MT test should
                  > be used as the base text for the OT. However, I have
                  > discovered that the NT authors used the LXX extensively in
                  > quotes, allusions, and in vocabulary. I have read arguments
                  > ranging from the LXX being inspired, to the LXX being a
                  > fraud. I have also heard arguments that the MT has been
                  > corrupted, either intentionally or unintentionally. Some
                  > feel that the addition of vowel points has hopelessly
                  > corrupted the MT. I would like to hear the positions the
                  > group has on these issues. Should the MT text be used as our
                  > OT, or should LXX be used? Should the base be the MT with
                  > the LXX supplementary, or should the LXX be the base text
                  > with the MT used supplementary? I do agree that Hebrew was
                  > the original language of the OT, but which text is closer to
                  > that original Hebrew? I apologize for being long winded. I
                  > am sure all of you have been through these issues a thousand
                  > times. It is something I am sincerely wrestling with, and I
                  > ask for your patience to perhaps answer these questions for
                  > the 1,001st time.
                  > Thanks,
                  > Michael
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >     mailto:lxx-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  ___________________________________________________________
                  Χρησιμοποιείτε Yahoo!;
                  Βαρεθήκατε τα ενοχλητικά μηνύματα (spam); Το Yahoo! Mail
                  διαθέτει την καλύτερη δυνατή προστασία κατά των ενοχλητικών
                  μηνυμάτων http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.