New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament

[Baptist Believer]

I think it is important to note that the sign posted above Jesus on the cross was written in Latin, Hebrew (probably Aramaic), and Greek (John 19:20).

All of those languages were in common use in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.

 

[loDebar]

It was koine Greek, the common man's Greek,

The Hebrew ego did not promote other languages. Same as today many Jews do not consider your opinion spiritually as worthwhile if you re not a Jew

 

[loDebar]

I think it is important to note that the sign posted above Jesus on the cross was written in Latin, Hebrew (probably Aramaic), and Greek (John 19:20).

All of those languages were in common use in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.

They were used by the different groups, all groups did not use all languages

 

[TCassidy]

I think it is important to note that the sign posted above Jesus on the cross was written in Latin, Hebrew (probably Aramaic), and Greek (John 19:20).

I agree. It is important to understand that the "Hebrew" spoken and written by the Jews of that era was actually Aramaic (Chaldean) brought back from the Babylonian Captivity, and written using Hebrew orthography (Hebrew letters).

It was koine Greek, the common man's Greek,

I disagree. It was Koine (common) in that it was the language the entire area held in common. The Romans understood it, the Greeks understood it, and the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean understood it. They had one language in common. Greek.

 

[loDebar]

Then why require the message above Jesus to be written in three languages if all could understand one in common?

Josephus disagrees with you on learning koine Greek

....on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." —Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I agree. It is important to understand that the "Hebrew" spoken and written by the Jews of that era was actually Aramaic (Chaldean) brought back from the Babylonian Captivity, and written using Hebrew orthography (Hebrew letters).

I disagree. It was Koine (common) in that it was the language the entire area held in common. The Romans understood it, the Greeks understood it, and the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean understood it. They had one language in common. Greek.

You mean Hebrew typography? Morphology is the study of morphemes (the smallest meaningful parts of a word) and how morphemes are added to words to change and modify the meanings of words.

 

[rlvaughn]

Singulars and plurals are exchanged also, and it is perfectly fine.

...For example, Matthew 4:7 εφη αυτω ο ιησους παλιν γεγραπται ουκ εκπειρασεις κυριον τον θεον σου (Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.)

I noticed this is one of those cases. In Deuteronomy, plural Israel is addressed, but in Matthew singular Satan is addressed. Perfectly fine, and tailored to the audience.

 

[rlvaughn]

This has been (and hopefully will continue to be) a very interesting thread of comments -- though it hasn't necessarily gone the way I expected. Here are two facts I have taken away so far.

1. We are all Baptists and we all have opinions! We often hold them strongly. The Bible doesn't specifically say "Jesus spoke this in Aramaic," but I deduce that since the Gospels record Jesus speaking Aramaic words; for examples, Matthew 27:46, Mark 3:17, Mark 5:41, Mark 7:34, Mark 14:36, Mark 15:34. There may be other explanations. The New Testament's writers never tells us the "OT version" from which they quote, but because of certain exactness of NT quotations to the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, I deduce that some of the quotations are from the Greek Septuagint. There may be other explanations. Here is one example, a comparison of Romans 3:12-18 with Psalm 14:3 (numbered Psalm 13 in the Septuagint)

Greek Septuagint text used by the Church of Greece (Psalm 13/14:3; also matches the print copy of my Brenton Septuagint)

πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρειώθησαν, οὐκ ἔστι ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὑτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν· ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν· οὐκ ἔστι φόβος Θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

Stephanos-1550 Greek New Testament (Romans 3:12-18; also matches my TRS Textus Receptus, and, I think, NA28)

παντες εξεκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν ουκ εστιν ποιων χρηστοτητα ουκ εστιν εως ενος ταφος ανεωγμενος ο λαρυγξ αυτων ταις γλωσσαις αυτων εδολιουσαν ιος ασπιδων υπο τα χειλη αυτων ων το στομα αρας και πικριας γεμει οξεις οι ποδες αυτων εκχεαι αιμα συντριμμα και ταλαιπωρια εν ταις οδοις αυτων και οδον ειρηνης ουκ εγνωσαν ουκ εστιν φοβος θεου απεναντι των οφθαλμων αυτων

Except for some pointings and punctuation that the online Stephanos which I copied doesn't have, one can observe that these match.

2. That which we know if we are even generally familiar with the Old and New Testaments -- that "it is written" references in the New Testament often are not literal matches to the source in the Old Testament. Why this is and what we should make of it is my original question, related to things Dave Brunn pointed out in his book.

 

[loDebar]

The quotes that are translated, and or non quote references from the OT that all would have been familiar with the verses have to be considered originally inspired. Translations, being repeated as inspired verses have to be questioned if the meanings are changed.
Example,
in Spanish I was told the name for Clydesdale horse is the equivalent of "gigantic burro". If the writer uses English to mean Clydesdale, yet a translator uses "gigantic burro" . Do not change the meaning to suggest a very large donkey is intended.

 

[rlvaughn]

The entire Bible -- from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 -- is inspired by God. He breathed his word into Moses and John and everyone in between, so that the words are pure, accurate, inerrant, and authoritative. Any New Testament quotes of, references to, or allusions to the written Old Testament are inspired by God. It is for that reason that we should consider how God inspired men to quote, reference, and allude to his inspired words. Such has authority over our thoughts, opinions, explanations, and illustrations on the same.

 

[loDebar]

We both agree the original languages, the original thoughts are inspired. Translations are not inspired. We do not know if discrepancies between OT and NT quotes are just language differences with original thoughts or a loose reference to a well known verse not trying to be a quote.

To complete your statement , any misunderstandings are from man.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I know there are some languages that actually do not ever use passive voice. so in some languages if you translated you would have to change passive constructions to active.

 

[John of Japan]

The New Testament writers, including Jesus, often quoted from the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures).

I have to disagree with you. Greek was used throughout that part of the ancient world, and Galilee was more Hellenized than Jerusalem. It also appears that Jesus quoted the LXX a fair amount.

I see your point, but would mention that the times Jesus was directly quoted in another language, it was Aramaic: Talitha cumi, Eli eli lama sabachthani, and so forth.

 

[John of Japan]

loDebar, I'm not sure I'm following your question? Are you saying that translators should ignore the Greek quote by the original speaker or authors (Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.) and find the Hebrew that was quoted and translate that into English?

The examples that Brunn gives are in English because he is writing to English readers. But he is dealing, for example, with active/passive in Hebrew and Greek.

We must not make the mistake of thinking that simply because something is active or passive in form, we must make it the same form in the target language, though that should be the default method. Tense, mood, and voice in Hebrew and Greek do not always correspond to the same in the target language. For example, the passive form in Japanese has two other uses than the passive in Greek: as an honorific form (respect language), and to give a negative nuance to an action.

 

[John of Japan]

if it was known as a quote in Hebrew, why use the Greek to then translate to English? Why not Hebrew straight to English?

The LXX was known to all Jewish speakers of Greek at the time of Christ. Therefore, the NT human authors used the LXX in many cases without re-translating, because the Greek passage illustrated their point as is. When their exegetical point was illustrated by the Hebrew but not the Greek, they would re-translate.

 

[John of Japan]

My college Greek professor proposed that Jesus did much of His teaching in Greek, and this is one of the reasons.

That's contrary to the great majority of scholars. Any proof?

 

[John of Japan]

the very early Church father, Papias (died about 100 A.D.), said that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew/Aramiac

Most scholars consider Papias to be mistaken or misunderstood. We have no manuscripts whatsoever of Matthew in Hebrew.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Most scholars consider Papias to be mistaken or misunderstood. We have no manuscripts whatsoever of Matthew in Hebrew.

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.

 

[loDebar]

The LXX was known to all Jewish speakers of Greek at the time of Christ. Therefore, the NT human authors used the LXX in many cases without re-translating, because the Greek passage illustrated their point as is. When their exegetical point was illustrated by the Hebrew but not the Greek, they would re-translate.

So , has LXX references been used as inspired scripture ?

 

[John of Japan]

The quotes that are translated, and or non quote references from the OT that all would have been familiar with the verses have to be considered originally inspired. Translations, being repeated as inspired verses have to be questioned if the meanings are changed.
Example,
in Spanish I was told the name for Clydesdale horse is the equivalent of "gigantic burro". If the writer uses English to mean Clydesdale, yet a translator uses "gigantic burro" . Do not change the meaning to suggest a very large donkey is intended.

Your Spanish example is of an idiom in the Spanish language. As such, to translate the Spanish idiom into English as "gigantic burro" instead of "Clydesdale horse" would be a mistaken rendering by any theory of translation, secular or Bible.

Idioms can be defined as "Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules.—(2) The idiom is a term denoting the general linguistic or grammatical character of a language” (Mario Pei and Mario Gaynor, A Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 95).