1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

LXX quoted in NT

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Paul33, Mar 29, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since most of the OT quotes are from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Text, what does that say to us about exegetical study of the Hebrew text or any text?

    We believe in verbal inspiration and inerrancy. But if the quotes found in the NT are from the LXX and not the original Hebrew Text, what does that say about verbal inspiration?

    Example: I find from the Hebrew text that bara is used in Genesis 1:1 and asa is used in Genesis 1:16. But in the LXX, poiew is used in both places.

    I do not believe that bara and asa are synonymns in Hebrew, nor do I believe that they are interchangeable. Bara seems to be a creative act that is unique. Asa is a general term of accomplishment, i.e. did, make, appoint, fashion, form, etc.

    But if I only have the LXX, I wouldn't really know that from the Greek translation. And yet, this is the translation that is quoted in the NT.

    Does this trouble any of you? If so, in what way?
     
    #1 Paul33, Mar 29, 2005
  2. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Interesting thread. Obviously, inspiration may cross all languages, and thus God's Word may be communicated in all languages. Regarding Paul33's example, Greek also has different words for "do/make", but the translators apparently decided that BARA and ASA were indeed synonymous enough to be included in the idea of Greek POIEW. Maybe the words are more synonymous than we think? At least this example from the LXX is one argument in favor of such and idea.

    Of course, I think exegetical study from the original language may safeguard the introduction of erroneous teaching, but exegetical study from a "good" English translation by an English pastor may be much more accurate than exegetical study of the Hebrew by a pastor who doesn't know Hebrew very well.

    Anyway, there are many places in the NT that appear not to come from any LXX edition, and we're left to assume that some NT authors, most of them trained in Hebrew school themselves until age 12 or so, would have at least memorized things in Hebrew and been able to make their own translation or paraphrase from what they knew so well, or had access to Hebrew sources in the synagogues.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #2 Bluefalcon, Mar 30, 2005
  3. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should be noted, that, according to Luke, Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the LXX and not the Hebrew Old Testament. Thus, the words in Chapter 4:18-19 are quoted from the LXX

    "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord"

    This would mean that Jesus did "approve" the LXX as a faithful translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. I am aware that even the LXX we have today has been corrupted, and would therefore refer to the original as being more trustworthy. I would not consider the LXX to be "infallable" even in the original, as it is only a translation of the original Hebrew. I do not think that we can argue, that, just because Jseus did use the LXX in more than one place, as did the apostle Paul in his writings, especially in Hebrews, that it can be treated on equal footing with the Hebrew original.
     
    #3 icthus, Mar 30, 2005
  4. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I should have made it clear, that Jesus did not always use the LXX, but that He did so on some occasions, as here in Luke.
     
    #4 icthus, Mar 30, 2005
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The AV translators certainly recognized the LXX as a legitimate Greek translation. I believe those men also recognized that the ms they were translating carried quotes from the LXX.
     
    #5 robycop3, Mar 30, 2005
  6. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Greek, poiew is the only word used for made or create. The LXX translated "bara" with poiew because there isn't another word in Greek that is as specific as "bara" is in Hebrew.

    If there is can someone point it out to me.

    I did a search of "create" in the NIV and found only one NT reference. There were none in the KJV.

    A search of "made" revealed numerous citations..
     
    #6 Paul33, Mar 30, 2005
  7. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    It seems the Greek verb KTIZW is used with the idea of "create" in the following references: Mk. 13:19; 1 Co. 9:11; Eph. 2:10; 3:9; 4:24; Col. 1:16, etc. Also Mt. 19:11 uses both KTIZW and POIEW in reference to him who created male and female.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #7 Bluefalcon, Mar 31, 2005
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    At least Dt. 4:32 in the LXX is one place where a monkey's wrench may be thrown into Paul33's exclusivity of BARA in Hebrew, where the LXX uses the Greek verb KTIZW to render it.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #8 Bluefalcon, Mar 31, 2005
  9. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, I'll look them up.
     
    #9 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
  10. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, ktizo certainly seems to be more of an equivalent with bara then poiew. Poiew appears to be an equivalent to asa.

    This is interesting. Why would the translators use poeiw and not ktizo in the LXX at Genesis 1:1?

    Perhaps the translators were interpreting Genesis 1:1 as "sky" and "land" referencing it only to the earth's heavens, that is, what one sees from the earth's perspective.

    This is speculative. I have no way of knowing why they used poiew.

    But is it possible that they saw Geneses 1 and 2 as descriptions of earth's creation, and therefore translated Genesis 1:1 accordingly?

    Would you agree that poiew is general in meaning and ktizo is more specific in meaning, just like asa is genernal in meaning and bara is more specific?
     
    #10 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't "create" and "created" the same word? I found 12 references for "created".

    Your search prompted me to look it up in the KJV. ;)

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
    #11 av1611jim, Mar 31, 2005
  12. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    I commend each of you for a decent and educational discussion. This is good, please continue!
     
    #12 Phillip, Mar 31, 2005
  13. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deut. 4:32

    Excellent Bluefalcon.

    LXX translated bara with ktizo.

    Anyone else have any ideas why LXX translators didn't translate bara with ktizo in Genesis 1:1.

    I know that poiew can include the idea of "create" by God, but why not use the more specific "ktizo?"
     
    #13 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
  14. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Also note Is. 45:8; Ps. 148:5; Ez. 28:13, 15 for more BARA --&gt; KTIZW places in the LXX. That said, it is obvious that POIEW is the verb of preference for "make/create". I think it was more common in the vulgar and why use a less common word for a more common one? In the NT anyway, POIEW is used over 500 times, while KTIZW is only used some 15 times. I think POIEW is more common than KTIZW and obviously in the same realm of meaning as POIEW, so POIEW was the verb of default.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #14 Bluefalcon, Mar 31, 2005
  15. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I came up with the same results that you did.

    I think this shows that context determines meaning much more than which "verb" was used.

    Words have a range of meaning and it is the context that determines the exact meaning of any given word used.

    So when someone says this word was used as opposed to that word, that may or may not be a valid arguement.
     
    #15 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Scriptures give several examples which prove that bara and asah are used interchangeably.

    For example, in Psalm 148:1-5 the writer spoke of the "creation" (bara) of the angels. Yet when Nehemiah addressed the creation of angels, he employed the word asah to describe that event (9:6).

    In Genesis 1:1, the text speaks of God "creating" (bara) the Earth. Yet, when Nehemiah spoke of that same event he used the word asah to do so (9:6).

    When Moses wrote of the "creation" of man, he used bara (Genesis 1:27). Yet one verse before that (1:26), he spoke of God "making" (asah) man.

    Moses even employed the two words in the same verse (Genesis 2:4): "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens."

    The idea that "bara" and "asah" have inherently different meanings is a fabrication of the gap-theorists to try to prove their unscriptural position.
     
    #16 TCassidy, Mar 31, 2005
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now back to the main question. Is the LXX quoted in the NT?

    As all but a few of the manuscripts of the LXX still in existence post date the NT, and those that pre-date the NT are not quoted in the NT, it is impossible to be dogmatic about quotes of the LXX in the NT.

    However, it is pretty well proven that the NT quotes of the OT contain variants similar to the variants found in the LXX.

    Until 1947 it was assumed the NT was quoting the LXX, but since the findings at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) we have discovered a Hebrew text of the OT that contains the same variants. It was first called "The Septuagint Type Text" and later the "Vorlage" text ("Vorlage" meaning "before translation"), and it is now assumed that the Vorlage text is the text which was translated from Hebrew to Greek to give us the LXX.

    It is entirely possible the OT quotes found in the NT were from the Vorlage text and not the LXX.
     
    #17 TCassidy, Mar 31, 2005
  18. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    TC,

    Everything you said is true, but only because asa is a broad term that encompasses bara.

    TWOT, BDB, and other lexicons point out the difference between bara and asa.

    I can say, "God created the universe" and "God made the universe." But in what sense did God create the universe? He created it out of nothing. In what sense did God make the universe? He fashioned it or formed it by acting upon it.

    Therefore, bara and asa may be interchangeable in given situations, but the context ultimately dictates the meaning given to bara and asa.

    In Genesis, bara seems to refer to the creative act of God in creating something uniquely new. He created living creatures, birds, animals, and man. How? by fashioning them or forming them after their kinds. What God creates he makes (or does).

    Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the contextual distinctions in Genesis 1 concering bara and asa.

    It is true to say, God made the universe, meaning, "He did it."

    It is also true to say, God created the universe, meaning, "He uniquely created something new."
     
    #18 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
  19. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Genesis 2:4): "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens."

    Easily rendered: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God fashioned the land and the skies.

    Let us fashion man after our own image. So God created man in his own image.

    Asa speaks to the fashioning of man after God's own image out of the dust of the ground.

    Bara speaks to the creative act of God making something unique and different by breathing into man the breath of life.

    The same goes for the living creatures, birds, and animals. God creates them uniquely different.
    He forms them after their own kinds.

    Back to the idea of: What God creates, he does [forms, fashions, makes, etc.].
     
    #19 Paul33, Mar 31, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...