Did apostle Paul call Greek LXX inspired?

What "Greek LXX"???

I simply cannot reconcile the claim of a complete OT in Greek during Christ's time on earth with the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence that any Greek LXX (outside the possibility of the Pentetuch) existed before Origen.

 

Logos1560,

I really don't know. There is alot of debate as to what OT the 1st century church was reading. Most MVers believe LXX was a very early document while many KJVOs believe the LXX was a much later translation (or compliation) from the Hebrew to the Greek.

I have no earthly idea. It makes sense to me that the 1st century church probably had a Greek Bible since that was the universal language of the day. Whether it matched the LXX is doubtful.

Timothy's "scripture" could have been a Greek OT, a Hebrew OT, with maybe some NT apographs, but we can very reasonably assume (guarantee?) that it wasn't autographs.


Lacy

 

SD: I simply cannot reconcile the claim of a complete OT in Greek during Christ's time on earth with the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence that any Greek LXX (outside the possibility of the Pentetuch) existed before Origen.

I simply cannot reconcile the possibility of a complete OT in HEBREW having existed during Christ's time on earth due to the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence of a *complete* Hebrew OT or even complete OT books found among MSS dating prior to around 900 AD (the Dead Sea Scrolls contain at best about 2/3 of what we consider the OT, with some books such as Nehemiah wholly lacking).

(And no, I'm not serious....)

 

I know for a fact that they had a complete OT and NT and it was in English!

(And no, I'm not serious....)

lacy

 

The Septuagint is a 3rd to 2nd Century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It existed well before the time of Christ. We have numerous copies of the LXX today that have been age verified to exist to that era. The LXX existing and in heavy use prior to Christ is established fact.

Well, except to the occaisional KJVO revisionst.

 

Johnv,

What are the names of the 200-100 B.C. LXX MSS? Are they part of the DSS finds? I'm curious.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I would ignore KJVO sources since KJVOist are not known for being credible.

Does anyone have a Jewish reference about the LXX creation date. I'm sure that a Jewish historian would be able to set the record straight since most KJVOist seem to ignore gentle recorded history.

Why is it so important for KJVOist to create myths about the LXX? I think enough myths about the LXX existed well before KJVOist started creating more to add to it.

 

Johnv:

#1. Why do you use "BCE" instead of "BC"?? It was the atheist crowd that first used, and currently uses "BCE."

#2. You wrote: "We have numerous copies of the LXX today that have been age verified to exist to that era." That simply cannot be true. You cannot "age [verify]" a copy to date an original. See TCassidy's post for some accurate info on the LXX.

 

Well,when any tangible evedence can be found,what do you expect?

The LXX is just a figment of the average Jehudians imagination;and the lack of evedence make your claims laughable!

 

That would be too much like right!!!!!

Jehudians refuse to open their eyes to the truth!

 

A point or two of clarification:
First, the original question here was about inspiration. Well, technically, inspiration is of the orignial, not the copies. We believe (and know) that the copies we now have are highly accurate, but the inspiration of the copies is only as far as they match the original. If we were to have an exact photocopy of an original, then it would be inspired.
Second, the words are inspired (God breathed, or graphe theopnuemena).
Third, I'm not positive, but I seem to recall Josephus' historical record as saying the dates for the LXX. I may be wrong on this one, but I think it's correct. I know that I personally have seen no credible scholarly documentation doubting that the LXX was written two or three centuries before Christ. If it exists, please provide a reference.

 

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient.

But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common.

Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent.

For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.

Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.

(From To The Reader, AV 1611)

 

There is that pest known as the AV1611 again raining on another KJVO myth!

 

That's a falsehood. BCE is a term used most by Jewish historical scholars. Since the topic was on Jewish historical documentation, the term is perfectly appropriate.

I never said anything about "copies vs the original". I was talking specific pieces of manuscript. The earliest copies contain the Torah, the first books translated for inclusion at the Library of Alexandria at the behest of Ptolemy (supplying the need of Jews living outside of Palestine, who were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great's campaign to Hellenize his empire in the mid 300's BCE). Over time, translation of the remaining books was completed. Copies of the LXX dating to 50BCE or earlier contain fragments of the lesser prophets Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah.

The fact the the LXX was in common use by Greek-speaking Jews by the time of Christ is indesputable.

 

I'm a bit confused. You don't believe that the LXX was a common standard because you don't think there are enough copies in existence, yet you believe that there were likely many differing Greek translations, even though evidence for many different Greek translations in common use is lacking.

I don't think that's every been in much dispute. It's been widely known that Palestinian Jews adhered regularly to Hebrew, while Jews in the Greek provinces widely spoke Greek as their primary language.

Interestingly, the discovery of the DSS has put a huge dent in KJVOism, since the text of the DSS reads like, and supports, the LXX, as you pointed out (KJVOists typically reject the LXX as a reliable source text).

Of note, however, is the fact that New Testament writers used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1:6 is a quotation from Psalm 97:7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the "graven images", "idols" and "gods". The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that "all the angels of God" worship Jesus.

Also of note is the fact that the original KJV translators themselves wrote on the authenticity of the LXX (thus blowing another wide gaping hole in KJVOism): "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places ... which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, ... which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."


The bottom line, in regards to the original opening post of this thread, is that Paul wasn't calling a specific translation of the day inspired to the exclusion of any other. He was referring to the Word of God contained in scriptural writings. The arguements over translations are often unnecessary.

 

Johnv: it IS disputable because there are no fragments other than the portions of the 5 chapters in Deuteronomy extent. Everything else is merely conjecture and speculation.