Did apostle Paul call Greek LXX inspired?

Therefore, KJVOism is disputable because there are *no* fragments of the translators' original manuscripts and only the *printed* versions of the KJV -- each of which differs from the other.
"Everything else is merely conjecture and speculation."

 

TCassidy: Neither is there any proof that the NT quotes from any Greek translation of the OT. Since the discovery of the DSS we now know that a LXX type Hebrew text was in pretty common use at that time that could very well have been the source of the NT quotes.

So do ya think the LXX mentioned by the AV translators coulda been re-rendered into Hebrew by the time Jesus read from Isaiah in Luke 4, and that He read from a Hebrew translation of the LXX?

Not trying to start a cockfight; just wondering. After all, the OT quotes found in the NT do NOT usually match the Masoretic Text that WE have.

 

What is NOT conjecture & speculation is that the NT quotes found in the OT don't match the Masoretic Text now generally used to make OT translations.

 

As the old saying goes, anything is possible, but I have no reason to believe the mythical Alexandrian LXX mentioned in The Letter to Aristide was translated into Hebrew. It is more likely there were two different regional Hebrew texts in existence at that time. </font>[/QUOTE]So the AV translators were wrong about the LXX?

 

TC: the notes of the final revision committee are still patially extant. I have a reproduction of them.

Actually, Doc, so do I -- but you know as well as I that the "notes" are extremely limited, and certainly do *not* agree in places with the "final" 1611 version (or later versions) of the KJV. So the issue of the "original" KJV manuscripts remains problematic.

 

Actually R. Laird Harris, I believe, did a complete study of every quote in the NT and found that the ratio was something like 3:2. Sorry but I can't remember which side had the 3, the MT or the LXX.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

I should have said pre-Christian..

 

They were not wrong about its existance, nor about its value, but they were wrong to assume the Letter was a valid history of the translation of the LXX. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, lemme see if I have this right...There was no "LXX" commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelph in the 200s BC, and the "letter to Aristeus" is a myth, so the AV translators blew the history of the LXX...and there was no "LXX" before Origen wrote the "Hexapla"...but there were several Hebrew versions of the OT in use in Jesus' earthly time, one of which He read aloud from, in Luke 4.

 

TC: The "original manuscript" was a copy of the Bishops' Bible with the editorial mark-ups.

Precisely. That's still "the" manuscript...and it no longer exists, apparently having been destroyed in a fire later in the 1600s. So this leaves no credible source by which to verify *which* renderings of the KJV that appeared in one or more of the various early editions actually *agreed* with the translators' mark-ups, and where they differ, KJVO advocates are whistling in the dark.

 

Just an interesting observation:

If there were 72 elders, then why is it called the LXX (70)??

Also, these were ALEXANDRIAN Jews, which were considered apostates by the orthodox Jews in Israel.

Only the tribe of Levi had authority from God to diseminate scripture. The elders from the other tribes had no authority to translate the scriptures...in another words, God absolutely could not have been in the translation process as it went against His previously revealed will.

Jesus did not refer to the LXX, the LXX-so called (since it was created at a later date) quoted (ostensibly) Jesus.

Jesus referred to jots and tittles which are HEBREW markings, not Greek markings. He could not have possibly been refering to a Greek text.

Conclusion: there was no complete, authorized-by-God, OT Greek text in the time of Christ on earth. It is a myth carried on by the enemies of scripture.

 

Then please explain why the verses of Isaiah Jesus read aloud in Luke 4 match GREEK writings of Isaiah rather than the Masoretic Text. Somebody somewhere changes SOMETHING, and as Dr. Cassidy has pointed out, the quotes match the Vorlage Hebrew text quite well. (Vorlage means, "text before a translator", a reconstruction of a text made by working backwards from a translation)

Apollos was an Alex Jew, who was used mightily by Jesus after the Gospel of Jesus was preached to him & he came to Jesus.

Also, Paul pointed out that the JEWS had been given the ORACLES of God. And remember, the Jews are made up of the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Benjamin(Paul was a Benjamite Jew) & most of the tribe of Levi, which had moved to the land of Judah when Jeroboam fired them as priests.(Virtually every Jew surnamed Cohen is a Levite) Paul was given at least as much new Scripture as anyone who ever lived.

And let's not forget that a portion of Scripture was written by people who weren't Israelis at all...The Book of Job, the oldest Scriptures, was prolly written by his friend Bildad & finished by Bildad's son or grandson, who outlived Job...and that part of Daniel, written or dictated by Nebuchadnezzar.

The Law had originally been written in Proto-Hebrew, or even Egyptian, by Moses, as God dictated it to him while commanding him to write. As time passed & the priests copied the Law, they wrote it in THEIR Hebrew, which had begun to use jots & tittles. For all we know, by Jesus'time, only the Law was written only in Hebrew, with the rest of the Scriptures written in other languages as well as in Hebrew. Remember, Jesus was referring to the LAW and not Scripture in general when He mentioned jots & tittles. But in referring to Scripture in general, He said it CANNOT BE BROKEN.

All we've done is speculate why the translations of Jesus' quotes of Isaiah in Luke 4 don't match the translations of those verses made from the Masoretic Text. Again, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, CHANGED SOMETHING.