New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament

[John of Japan]

We also have the testimony of Irenaeus;

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Against the Heretics, Book III, ch.1)

Then we have Origen

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language. (In Eusebius in Church History, 6:25)

And, Eusebius himself

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius, Church History, 3:24)

Surely they all can't be wrong, even though we don't have a manuscript for this as yet? This early witness seems quite strong.

Good point. However, these other authors are commonly believed to depend on the quote from Papias for their statements. In other words, Papias said it, and they believed it with no proof (Hebrew mss, etc.).

 

[John of Japan]

So , has LXX references been used as inspired scripture ?

Some Jews considered the LXX to be inspired. Some Christians also did so, down to Augustine in his exchange with Jerome, who used the Hebrew OT for his Vulgate translation.

On the other hand, if you are asking whether or not the LXX quotes in the NT should be considered by us to be inspired, my answer is "Yes."

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Some Jews considered the LXX to be inspired. Some Christians also did so, down to Augustine in his exchange with Jerome, who used the Hebrew OT for his Vulgate translation.

On the other hand, if you are asking whether or not the LXX quotes in the NT should be considered by us to be inspired, my answer is "Yes."

The LXX cannot be "inspired" as is the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, as it is a Greek "translation" made from the Hebrew Mss of the time. I believe that the writers of the NT used the Hebrew "text" that underlies the LXX translation, hence the equivalent readings. This is known as the Hebrew Vorlage text.

 

[John of Japan]

The LXX cannot be "inspired" as is the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, as it is a Greek "translation" made from the Hebrew Mss of the time. I believe that the writers of the NT used the Hebrew "text" that underlies the LXX translation, hence the equivalent readings. This is known as the Hebrew Vorlage text.

So then we we come to a NT quote of the LXX, we should say to ourselves, "That's not inspired," then go on reading. Is that what you are saying? Really? Because it is very clear that many NT quotes of the OT are exactly the same as the LXX.

At the end of the semester, right now I am having my Greek 102 students translate 1 John in committees, to give the feeling of a translation work on a mission field. No two committees come up with the same rendering of the same verse. On Tues/Thurs I teach a seminary class on "Bible Translation Theory and Practice." I've given them various homework assignments to correct various English translations. Again, the students do not come up with the same renderings of the same passages. So it would be very strange for a NT author to translate from the Hebrew Vorlage and come up with exactly the same rendering as the LXX.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

So then we we come to a NT quote of the LXX, we should say to ourselves, "That's not inspired," then go on reading. Is that what you are saying? Really? Because it is very clear that many NT quotes of the OT

No, I am NOT saying that. The LXX cannot be inspired as it is a TRANSLATION made from Hebrew manuscripts. It is these Hebrew manuscripts, or Hebrew text from them, that were used by the NT writers. We are no here talking about the early Church fathers use of the actual LXX, but the NT writers. There is no way that this can be disproved, and the fact that God the Holy Spirit ONLY inspired the writers of the actual 66 Books of the Holy Bible, and ONLY these that were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, for the OT and NT, are the Inspired Word of Almighty God. What of the Latin Vulgate then, some claim that this too was "inspired"?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

So then we we come to a NT quote of the LXX, we should say to ourselves, "That's not inspired," then go on reading. Is that what you are saying? Really? Because it is very clear that many NT quotes of the OT are exactly the same as the LXX.

At the end of the semester, right now I am having my Greek 102 students translate 1 John in committees, to give the feeling of a translation work on a mission field. No two committees come up with the same rendering of the same verse. On Tues/Thurs I teach a seminary class on "Bible Translation Theory and Practice." I've given them various homework assignments to correct various English translations. Again, the students do not come up with the same renderings of the same passages. So it would be very strange for a NT author to translate from the Hebrew Vorlage and come up with exactly the same rendering as the LXX.

If, as you say that the LXX is inspired as the OT Books are, then what of the fact that it contains some of The Apocryphal books? Are these also "inspired" by the Holy Spirit? Did you know the the Dead Sea Scrolls are more in agreement with the LXX, than with the MT? These are Hebrew manuscripts. Your reasoning is faulty.

 

[John of Japan]

No, I am NOT saying that. The LXX cannot be inspired as it is a TRANSLATION made from Hebrew manuscripts. It is these Hebrew manuscripts, or Hebrew text from them, that were used by the NT writers. We are no here talking about the early Church fathers use of the actual LXX, but the NT writers. There is no way that this can be disproved, and the fact that God the Holy Spirit ONLY inspired the writers of the actual 66 Books of the Holy Bible, and ONLY these that were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, for the OT and NT, are the Inspired Word of Almighty God. What of the Latin Vulgate then, some claim that this too was "inspired"?

You've lost me. I'm not really sure if you are disagreeing with me or not.

Concerning the Latin Vulgate, only Catholics claim inspiration for it, and I'm certainly not a Catholic.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You've lost me. I'm not really sure if you are disagreeing with me or not.

Concerning the Latin Vulgate, only Catholics claim inspiration for it, and I'm certainly not a Catholic.

I am saying that the LXX is NOT inspired by God the Holy Spirit, because it is only a translation. ONLY the original Hebrew written by the OT writers IS. Is this clear?

 

[John of Japan]

If, as you say that the LXX is inspired as the OT Books are, then what of the fact that it contains some of The Apocryphal books? Are these also "inspired" by the Holy Spirit? Did you know the the Dead Sea Scrolls are more in agreement with the LXX, than with the MT? These are Hebrew manuscripts. Your reasoning is faulty.

I beg your pardon. My remarks cannot be construed in any way, shape or form to say that the LXX was inspired. My point was that the originals of the Greek NT were inspired. I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. Therefore, the quotes of the LXX included in the NT are inspired in that they are part of the original NT.

How in the world you got that I believe the LXX itself is inspired is completely beyond me.

 

[John of Japan]

I am saying that the LXX is NOT inspired by God the Holy Spirit, because it is only a translation. ONLY the original Hebrew written by the OT writers IS. Is this clear?

No, it is not clear, because the topic of the OP is not whether the LXX is inspired or not, but the inclusion of LXX renderings in the NT.

 

[TCassidy]

If the New Testament quotes of the LXX are not inspired, what other parts of the New Testament are not inspired? After all, the language changed after the Babylonian Captivity. It went from Proto-Hebrew in the Pentateuch to Hebrew in the Poetic Books to Aramaic written with Hebrew orthography during the earthy ministry of Christ.

So which one is inspired and which one is not inspired? And how do we know?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I beg your pardon. My remarks cannot be construed in any way, shape or form to say that the LXX was inspired. My point was that the originals of the Greek NT were inspired. I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. Therefore, the quotes of the LXX included in the NT are inspired in that they are part of the original NT.

How in the world you got that I believe the LXX itself is inspired is completely beyond me.

your own words in #62

"On the other hand, if you are asking whether or not the LXX quotes in the NT should be considered by us to be inspired, my answer is "Yes."

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

If the New Testament quotes of the LXX are not inspired, what other parts of the New Testament are not inspired? After all, the language changed after the Babylonian Captivity. It went from Proto-Hebrew in the Pentateuch to Hebrew in the Poetic Books to Aramaic written with Hebrew orthography during the earthy ministry of Christ.

So which one is inspired and which one is not inspired? And how do we know?

My point is that the quotes are not from the LXX, but from the underlying Hebrew that this translation was made from. If the LXX quotes are equally Inspired as the OT Hebrew is, then what of the Apocryphal books that the LXX contains?

 

[TCassidy]

your own words in #62

"On the other hand, if you are asking whether or not the LXX quotes in the NT should be considered by us to be inspired, my answer is "Yes."

Well, duh! OF COURSE the New Testament is inspired! That belief is the very foundation of orthodoxy! To deny the New Testament is inspired is the very foundation of apostate Theological Liberalism and Modernism!

 

[TCassidy]

My point is that the quotes are not from the LXX, but from the underlying Hebrew that this translation was made from. If the LXX quotes are equally Inspired as the OT Hebrew is, then what of the Apocryphal books that the LXX contains?

Please post any New Testament quote from the LXX Apocrypha.

 

[Deacon]

If the New Testament quotes of the LXX are not inspired, what other parts of the New Testament are not inspired? After all, the language changed after the Babylonian Captivity. It went from Proto-Hebrew in the Pentateuch to Hebrew in the Poetic Books to Aramaic written with Hebrew orthography during the earthy ministry of Christ.

So which one is inspired and which one is not inspired? And how do we know?

And the next question...

Should translators correct OT Scriptures from NT writing?

It's been done in a few translations ​

Rob

 

[loDebar]

My point is that the quotes are not from the LXX, but from the underlying Hebrew that this translation was made from. If the LXX quotes are equally Inspired as the OT Hebrew is, then what of the Apocryphal books that the LXX contains?

I agree, we cannot decide if a translation is inspired , if so then which one or which not

We have to say the original languages, what ever they are, are the only inspired scriptures.

Quoting a translation in scripture is the problem, Is the NT quote inspired, or as is suggested only the original scripture referenced by the quote

 

[TCassidy]

And the next question...

Should translators correct OT Scriptures from NT writing?

It's been done in a few translations ​

Rob

I don't believe they should. As God is the Author of the scriptures He is allowed to change them and give a different nuance to their meaning or application. We are not.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Well, duh! OF COURSE the New Testament is inspired! That belief is the very foundation of orthodoxy! To deny the New Testament is inspired is the very foundation of apostate Theological Liberalism and Modernism!

Can't you people read English? John is talking about the NT quotes from the LXX. This is what this discussion is all about!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I agree, we cannot decide if a translation is inspired , if so then which one or which not

We have to say the original languages, what ever they are, are the only inspired scriptures.

Indeed, ONLY the original languages are directly Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but there are some here who cannot grasp this. The quotes in the NT that agree with the LXX, are from a Hebrew text of manuscripts that are older than the MT, and in these places agree with the LXX. It is this Hebrew Bible that the NT writers quote from