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

RE: A Question Regarding the use of the LXX in the N.T.

Expand Messages
  • C L
    The statistic of 90% is a bit inflated, I fear.  I believe current estimates place it at 75%, but opinions differ. On page 189 of Invitation to the
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 20, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The statistic of 90% is a bit inflated, I fear.  I believe current estimates place it at 75%, but opinions differ.

      On page 189 of Invitation to the Septuagint, Jobes and Silva cite Turnpike's study in 1868 (!) of 275 NT passages, where he found that the LXX (presumably the Majority Text) AND Masoretic Text agree with EACH OTHER and the NT in 20% of the instances surveyed.  They continue to say that "[o]f the 80% where some disagreement occurs, less than 5% agree with the Hebrew against the LXX, while about a third of the quotations agree with the LXX against the Hebrew." (Op cit., p. 89).

      Of course, there are a number of instances where an NT citation agrees with NEITHER LXX nor MT; not to mention citations whose antecedent remains unknown (often, NA27 notes these with "unde?" in the margin to show that we do not know what OT passage is being cited, so we cannot compare it to MT, LXX or other witnesses.

      Jobes and Silva give other references for more updated consultation:

      Gleason L. Archer and G.C. Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody, 1993.  (As advertised, a "complete" survey, but Jobes and Silva say it should be used with caution - though they do not indicate WHY.  Of course, many possible "echoes" or "allusions" are probably not included; not least because the very nature of what constitutes an "echo" or "allusion" is hotly debated.

      Hans Hubner. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Gottingen.  (I'm not sure how complete this is, but there are multiple volumes.)

      PLEASE DO NOTE that http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm is not a complete listing of all NT citations of the Old Testament.  This is merely a survey of SOME citations.

      You will also note that I have not mentioned Swete's Introduction to the OT in Greek or Jellicoe's The Septuagint and Modern Study.  These are good introductions and contain statistics, but they are a bit outdated (just as Turnpike is).

      Sincerely,

      Chris Lovelace 




      >An assertion is made in MacDonald's "Biblical Canon" (revised), that
      more than 90% of the quotes in the N.T. are from the LXX rather than the
      proto-MT or other texts. My cursory examination of this subject seems
      to indicate this is an overblown statement. Does anyone know of a
      definitive study which has been done to settle this?





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • everard johnston
      Thanks, Bob.   Everard. From: Robert Kraft To: lxx@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [lxx] A Question
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 21, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Bob.
         
        Everard.

        From: Robert Kraft <kraft@...>
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:09 PM
        Subject: Re: [lxx] A Question Regarding the use of the LXX in the N.T.


         
        No detailed lists, I think, but references to categories such as law,
        prophets, and "other" (and/or David/Psalms), as in the prologue to
        Sirach, the Qumran 4QMMT fragments, and the Jesus traditions (e.g.
        Luke). Perhaps these represent something like library categories, or
        perhaps shelves in book closets. Surely there were lists of one sort or
        another, but who created them and how they were maintained and
        transmitted (and with what authority) is less clear. The Melito passage
        (via Eusebius) is instructive -- he travels east to determine the
        "order" of scriptural writings, however that would be determined in what
        would seem to have been a scroll and small codex world (and why wasn't
        such information available from Jewish authorities in Asia Minor?).
        Similarly with Origen and his hexapla project -- how did he determine
        what manuscripts to use and in what order to arrange them?

        Bob

        On 7/20/2011 1:02 PM, everard johnston wrote:
        >
        > Dear Bob,
        >
        > Many thanks for your prompt response to my request. I appreciate and
        > agree with
        > everything you say. However, my question has to do with whether there is
        > evidence for the existence of lists, from JEWISH sources, analogous
        > to the
        > lists of 'Old Testament' books produced, for example, by Melito of
        > Sardis or
        > Origen. Apart from the list I reproduced from Josephus and the list that
        > appears much later in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Batra 14b), are you
        > aware of
        > any other such listings of books considered sacred by one or other Jewish
        > group. Of particular interest, of course, would be a list that
        > emanated from a
        > Jewish group that would have been reading and studying those texts in
        > Greek, but
        > information regarding any list, from any Jewish group would be
        > helpful. As far
        > as I am aware, the Qumran scrolls have yielded manuscripts and
        > fragments of all
        > books, apart from Esther, that are listed in Baba Batra, plus several
        > other books. I am not aware, however, of any list, analogous to what
        > we find in
        > Josephus, of books that the Qumran community would have considered, to
        > use an
        > anachronism, 'canonical' or, to use the description in the translation
        > of the
        > Josephus text I cited, 'divine'.
        >
        > I hope this makes my question clearer.
        >
        > Thanks again for your attention.
        >
        > Everard.
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Robert Kraft <kraft@... <mailto:kraft%40sas.upenn.edu>>
        > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tue, July 19, 2011 3:29:29 PM
        > Subject: Re: [lxx] A Question Regarding the use of the LXX in the N.T.
        >
        >
        > The question is based on several anachronisms which make it impossible
        > to reply. "The LXX" is a construct that did not exist as a
        > physica/textual object before about the 4th century ce, with the
        > development of codices such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that could hold
        > a particular textual form of the collection of scrolls and small codices
        > of the various portions of scripture that came to be known as the Greek
        > Jewish Scriptures. For the NT authors, scrolls of individual portions of
        > that later "LXX/OG" collection were available, in various textual forms.
        > Similarly for "the MT" or whatever is meant by "the proto-MT." There
        > were scriptural texts (scrolls) in Greek and Hebrew and probably other
        > languages, but not yet "the Bible" in the sense we have come to know.
        >
        > Possibly (probably?) ALL of the NT quotes came from existing Greek
        > translations. But not all of those translations of writings that came to
        > be considered "canonical" were included in the later collection of
        > Jewish scriptures that we call "LXX/OG."
        >
        > It's complicated!
        >
        > Bob Kraft, UPenn
        >
        > On 7/19/2011 2:10 PM, summascriptura wrote:
        > > An assertion is made in MacDonald's "Biblical Canon" (revised), that
        > more than
        > >90% of the quotes in the N.T. are from the LXX rather than the
        > proto-MT or other
        > >texts. My cursory examination of this subject seems to indicate this
        > is an
        > >overblown statement. Does anyone know of a definitive study which has
        > been done
        > >to settle this?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • andrew fincke
        Dear Dan, The website lists six instances where “A masoretic reading is quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Septuagint.” Let’s deal
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 21, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Dan,
          The website lists six instances where �A masoretic reading is quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Septuagint.� Let�s deal with thenm one by one:
          1) 1 Cor. 3:19 says: �He that taketh the wise in their craftiness,� for which Hebrew at Job 5:13 has �Taking wise in their craftiness� and LXX �Taking wise in thinking.� The website errs in ignoring the context of Job 5:12-13 LXX, which has �Frusting the plans of the crafty � taking wise in thinking.� The crux of the argument � �craftiness� � is right there at verse 12.
          2) Romans 11:35 says: �Who hath first given to him?� Note the final question mark, which the website left out! That cites Job 4:3 (not 4:11!), whose Hebrew is ambiguous: �Who will precede Me, and I will repay� or �Who went before Me, and I�m at peace.� LXX: �Who will resist me, and he will endure.� The website errs in ignoring the preferable source � Job 35:7, whose Hebrew �What will you give Him, or what from your hand will He take?� reflects the repricocity of the New Testament verse. LXX: �Are you actually going to give Him something? Or shall He take something from Your hand?� maintains the reciprocity while adding the cynical element that makes the Romans verse a joy to read.
          3) Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8 have �A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.� Source is Isaiah 8:14, whose stilted Hebrew �And He�s a temple and a stone of striking and a crag of stumbling� LXX expands to �And if you believe in Him, he will become for you a temple; and don�t view Him as an obstacle causing your downfall!� That captures the sense of Romans 9:33: �Behold I place in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal; whoever believes in Him will not be ashamed.�
          4) Mat. 2:15 has �Out of Egypt I called My Son.� which cites Hos. 11:1: �And from Egypt I called My Son� or �And from Egypt I called My sons.� LXX: And from Egypt I called His children� takes the ambiguous yod ending son/sons (livniy �My Son� livnay �My sons�) and doubles it to get livnayv �His sons,� which gains sense from the New Testament perspective when one considers that yv is the Divine Name abbreviated.
          5) John 19:37 has �And they shall look on Him whom they pierced,� which cites Zech. 12:10: �And they looked at Me, whom they pierced,� for which LXX has �And they will look at me, because they danced.� �Pierced� is daqar, while �danced� is raqad. Resh and dalet are practically identical.
          6) Mat. 11:10, Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27 have �Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,� citing Mal. 3:1: �Behold I send My messenger, and he will prepare a way before Me.� LXX: �Behold I send My messenger, and he will prepare a way before My face� is the same thing, since �before me� in Hebrew is literally �before my face.�





          To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          From: dantiller2001@...
          Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:28:00 -0700
          Subject: Re: [lxx] A Question Regarding the use of the LXX in the N.T.






          on this website you can see it & do the comparison yourself:
          http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm
          Use the links on the left,
          "Instances where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint against the Hebrew"
          and
          "Instances where the New Testament quotes the Hebrew against the Septuagint"

          ________________________________
          From: summascriptura <summascriptura@...>
          To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:10 PM
          Subject: [lxx] A Question Regarding the use of the LXX in the N.T.


          An assertion is made in MacDonald's "Biblical Canon" (revised), that more than 90% of the quotes in the N.T. are from the LXX rather than the proto-MT or other texts. My cursory examination of this subject seems to indicate this is an overblown statement. Does anyone know of a definitive study which has been done to settle this?

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.