New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament

[John of Japan]

I don't recall too much of the case, but the quotes from the LXX were part of it.

I don't place any stock in that theory. However, I am quite comfortable with the idea that Jesus was quite competent speaking all of the regional languages and dialects of His day.

Good enough.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Those are my words. So, do you understand the use of the English definite article? Apparently not. "The LXX" and "the LXX quotes" are not equivalent in meaning.

Let me ask the question. The NT quotes that are equivalent to the Greek text of the LXX, are these quotes "inspired" in exactly the same way that the original Hebrew OT is?

 

[John of Japan]

Ah, now you have modified your response! you now say the quotes in the NT are from the LXX or Hebrew, which is not what you said earlier. I believe in the complete Inspiration of the entire 66 Books of the Holy Bible, but only in the ORIGINALS.

No, I said exactly that the quotes in the NT are from either the LXX or the Hebrew in Post #55. I have not modified my response in the slightest. You simply don't understand plain English.

Answer to your question. Yes.

Great. Now learn English correctly.

 

[TCassidy]

I think you better study up on what exactly the Vorlage text actually represents.

"Vorlage" is a German word that means "prototype" and refers to an older version of the text under consideration. In this case an older version of the Hebrew text, older than the Masoretic Text.

But what must be understood is that the Vorlage Text was unknown prior to the Qumran discoveries. The Hebrew community did not know of it nor use it. Nor did the Christian community.

One of the tests of canonicity is that it was recognized and used by God's people down through the ages of history. That cannot be said of the Vorlage text.

What is more likely is that the Vorlage text includes scribal glosses that made their way into the body of the text. And the only example of these variant readings was the various editions of the Old Testament in Greek. (Only Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα can rightly be called "The LXX." Origen's Hexapla may have been a copy of the LXX but we really don't know as we have no complete manuscripts of that work. The other most important Greek translations of the Old Testament were done by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.)

Today, what is published as "The LXX" is compiled from Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.

 

[John of Japan]

Let me ask the question. The NT quotes that are equivalent to the Greek text of the LXX, are these quotes "inspired" in exactly the same way that the original Hebrew OT is?

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of both the OT and the NT in the original languages. This means that when the NT quotes the OT, those quotes are inspired in the same verbal plenary way as the rest of the Bible, even when those quotes disagree with the Hebrew original, whether that be from the LXX or the Hebrew re-translated by the NT human author (and those situations do exist). In those cases, God (through the human author) has His own purposes for the re-translation.

If you are going to say that no translation can never, ever be inspired, even when occurring within the NT, then you are denying the translation of many phrases and words right there in the NT text (Boanerges, etc.). In fact, you are then denying your own premise that the NT quotes in the OT are from the Hebrew, because even then they are translations.

If on the other hand you are saying that a non-inspired translation such as the LXX (as a complete translation) or the Vulgate or the KJV (all of which have had advocates for perfection) cannot be considered as having verbal plenary inspiration, then I agree.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have a question, what evidence is there that there was an LXX that existed before the time of Christ and the Apostles?

I have heard often that the Apostles quoted the LXX, but I am wondering if that is really the case?

 

[TCassidy]

But God did not, and you are just assuming that He did, with no evidence for this.

God did not what?

There is a huge difference between the ORIGINALS and TRANSLATIONS.

Yeah, we all know that.

The former is directly Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and the latter are NOT.

Yeah, we all know that too.

Now, do you have something of substance to contribute or are you going to continue to play Captain Obvious?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I think you better study up on what exactly the Vorlage text actually represents.

"Vorlage" is a German word that means "prototype" and refers to an older version of the text under consideration. In this case an older version of the Hebrew text, older than the Masoretic Text.

But what must be understood is that the Vorlage Text was unknown prior to the Qumran discoveries. The Hebrew community did not know of it nor use it. Nor did the Christian community.

One of the tests of canonicity is that it was recognized and used by God's people down through the ages of history. That cannot be said of the Vorlage text.

What is more likely is that the Vorlage text includes scribal glosses that made their way into the body of the text. And the only example of these variant readings was the various editions of the Old Testament in Greek. (Only Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα can rightly be called "The LXX." Origen's Hexapla may have been a copy of the LXX but we really don't know as we have no complete manuscripts of that work. The other most important Greek translations of the Old Testament were done by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.)

Today, what is published as "The LXX" is compiled from Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.

and how do you know this?

The Hebrew community did not know of it nor use it. Nor did the Christian community.

 

[TCassidy]

I have a question, what evidence is there that there was an LXX that existed before the time of Christ and the Apostles?

Probably. Papyrus Fouad 266 is a copy of the Pentateuch in Greek it dates to the 1st century BC but it is mostly fragmented.

I have heard often that the Apostles quoted the LXX, but I am wondering if that is really the case?

That is the point of the discussion. Did they quote an existing Greek translation of the OT, or did they translate from Hebrew on the fly? Or some of both. (I tend toward the last possibility.)

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I have a question, what evidence is there that there was an LXX that existed before the time of Christ and the Apostles?

I have heard often that the Apostles quoted the LXX, but I am wondering if that is really the case?

the LXX was completed by about 150 B.C., and used by the Church fathers. I do not believe the the NT writers quoted from it

 

[TCassidy]

and how do you know this?

The Hebrew community did not know of it nor use it. Nor did the Christian community.

History.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of both the OT and the NT in the original languages. This means that when the NT quotes the OT, those quotes are inspired in the same verbal plenary way as the rest of the Bible, even when those quotes disagree with the Hebrew original, whether that be from the LXX or the Hebrew re-translated by the NT human author (and those situations do exist). In those cases, God (through the human author) has His own purposes for the re-translation.

If you are going to say that no translation can never, ever be inspired, even when occurring within the NT, then you are denying the translation of many phrases and words right there in the NT text (Boanerges, etc.). In fact, you are then denying your own premise that the NT quotes in the OT are from the Hebrew, because even then they are translations.

If on the other hand you are saying that a non-inspired translation such as the LXX (as a complete translation) or the Vulgate or the KJV (all of which have had advocates for perfection) cannot be considered as having verbal plenary inspiration, then I agree.

bottom line is, that NO, not even the LXX is or can be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

History.

which can be mistaken, right?

 

[TCassidy]

but they are NOT from the LXX

Once again you completely miss the point!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

God did not what?

Yeah, we all know that.

Yeah, we all know that too.

Now, do you have something of substance to contribute or are you going to continue to play Captain Obvious?

you said in #83, "God quotes from a translation". He NEVER does, this is pure guesswork!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Once again you completely miss the point!

 

[TCassidy]

which can be mistaken, right?

Can you supply a quote that is incontestably from the Vorlage text prior to the Qumram finds?

 

[John of Japan]

bottom line is, that NO, not even the LXX is or can be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible!

Can a translation of the Hebrew original be inspired?

 

[TCassidy]

you said in #83, "God quotes from a translation". He NEVER does, this is pure guesswork!

So, you believe the quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament were taken from the Old Testament that was inspired in Greek and put into the Hebrew Old Testament so the New Testament writers wouldn't have to translate them into Greek?

Can you show me a Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament that contains the Greek phrases quoted in the New Testament?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The Holy Bible very clearly says:

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος", which ONLY refers to the original Hebrew OT and Greek NT. Period!