Concerning one of these passages, Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Hebrews 1:6 makes a vital Christological point by drawing on wording from Deuteronomy 32:43 that is supplied only by the Greek tradition and is absent altogether (it seems) from the MT” (Authority, p. 9). Gregory Lanier and William Ross added: “It is clear enough that Hebrews 1:6 is influenced by the Greek in some way in making this profound Christological claim—or, at least, it was not influenced by a Hebrew text that agreed with the MT” (pp. 10-11). Douglas Woodward commented: “Deuteronomy 32:43 provides us another distinctive affirmation of the deity of the Messiah—remarkable, that is, if you are reading the LXX’s account” (Septuagint, p. 60). Douglas Woodward asked: “Was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews reciting and expositing words that were present in the Septuagint but had been removed from the proto-Masoretic text by the rabbis at Jamnia in Judah?” (pp. 60-61). Concerning Deuteronomy 32:43, Douglas Woodward claimed: “Here we see two vital phrases completely dropped from the Masoretic Text, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him’ and ‘Let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him’” (Rebooting, Part One, p. 120). Richard Longenecker referred to “the discovery that [Dead Sea Scroll] 4QDeut 32.43 parallels in its Hebrew the Greek of the LXX” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 151). Michael Heiser asserted: “Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Dead Sea Scrolls has three poetic pairings” while “the Masoretic Text reading has removed or altered parts of two of the pairings” (I Dare You, p. 46). Lawrence Bednar noted: “Further evidence of the existence of an advanced amplified parallel Hebrew text for the LXX arises from finding a Qumran Hebrew manuscript giving Hebrew-text authority to the amplified LXX quotation of Dt. 32:43 in Heb. 1:6 of the New Testament (i.e. Let all the angels of God worship him)” (Inerrancy, p. 57).
-
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!
Septuagint
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Concerning another of these passages (Isaiah 42:4), Douglas Woodward asserted: “In the Masoretic Text, not only do the Gentiles equate to little more than an idiom, equivalent to ‘faraway places,’ the MT alters their relationship from one of faith to one focused on the Mosaic Law. Consequently, it is easy to see that Matthew 12:20-21 references the LXX when quoting Isaiah 42:4” (Septuagint, p. 59). Patrick Fairbairn referred to “the last clause, ‘in His name shall the Gentiles trust,’ which is the Septuagint rendering for what is literally, ‘the isles shall wait for His law’” (Opening, p. 365). Douglas Woodward claimed: “This is perhaps one of the most blatant alterations of the text, illustrating that instead of salvation coming by the Anointed One, the Messiah in whom the Gentiles will have hope, the KJV (following the Masoretic text) reads ‘the isles shall wait for his law’” (Rebooting, Part One, p. 114).
KJV-only author Lloyd Streeter assumed and claimed: “The text of the Masorete scribes (A. D. 500-1000) was the same Hebrew Old Testament text that Jesus read and approved” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 74).
In contrast, KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth, p. 59). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic, p. 31). Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, p. 107).
In contrast, KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth, p. 59). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic, p. 31). Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, p. 107).
Interesting. The Hebrew obviously is not what Jesus technically quoted. But it is also not the existing LXX.
Matthew 27:46, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? . . . . Psalm 22:1 Hebrew is cited by Matthew. Mark 15:34, ,has Jesus speaking it in the Aramaic.
Truth is we cannot say as Jesus' words were a part of pre-reflected text. You are right that, because of the Aramaic, we cannot say it is a quote from the Hebrew or LXX.
I think I lean toward the statement not being a quote but instead the Hebrew (and LXX) foreshadowing what was to come.
One reason is most of the NT quotes fo not serm to come from the Hebrew, and none of the Early Church writings use the Hebrew text.
Maybe. I do not believe we can know. The reason is the NT quotes most closely match the LXX. So why would the LXX already have corrected what the NT Greek tries to correct.
37818
Well-Known Member
The original New Testament Greek autographs of Old Testament quotes would be true to the Old Testament it cited. Our handed down copies from them.
I think the inspired writers of the NT sometimes "repurpose" OT texts and to do so might use either the Hebrew or Greek translations to facilitate the revelation.
Let us look at Hosea 6:6. The Hebrew has "hesed" which refers to steadfast love resulting in faithfulness. But the LXX goes with "mercy" a particular fruit of "hesed." So mirroring the LXX facilitated the repurpose. See Matthew 9:13, 12:7 and Luke 10:37.
Let us look at Hosea 6:6. The Hebrew has "hesed" which refers to steadfast love resulting in faithfulness. But the LXX goes with "mercy" a particular fruit of "hesed." So mirroring the LXX facilitated the repurpose. See Matthew 9:13, 12:7 and Luke 10:37.
The Septuagint gives the Psalm 40:6 as "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require."
I think it is logical (perhaps not the only logical conclusion) to view the NT as using the Septuagint as their translation of Scripture.
37818
Well-Known Member
That same backwards thinking perhaps dismisses Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 virgin birth.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but it is not one of the ones we share. I believe the Holy Spirit painted from the palette of the inspired writers vocabulary and understanding. Thus they quoted or paraphrased an existent text with which they were familiar. To claim two divergent texts both matched the original autograph is a bridge too far for me.
Did you ever comply with the Law of Liberty and go and find out what "I desire mercy and not sacrifice means?" We can provide "lib service" devotion to God, going through the motions of church members, but if Christ's sacrificial devotion to the lost, our neighbors, is not reflected in our lives we become a candidate for those who did not give Christ what He needed. Matthew 25:31-45
Further, a tangential aspect of Christ's command, is our understanding that evangelism, using our "manna" to witness to others is not a performative act of futility, but an actual act of mercy. If everyone's either predestined to salvation or not, it would be an act of futility.
I believe the internal testimony of the scriptures causes me to ask why Jesus, coming to Judah with the proclamation that his kingdom of heaven is at hand and calling the people to repentance in preparation for it, would come preaching this in a heathen language (as most commentators claim) when they have a national language for 2000 years. He speaks only to his chosen people during times they are under his chastening hand. The kingdom of heaven is an outward visible kingdom. John 18:37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
9 For then (see v8) will I turn to the people (Israel) a pure language (all the people speaking the same language), that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.
At some point all 12 tribes of Israel will speak Hebrew.
9 For then (see v8) will I turn to the people (Israel) a pure language (all the people speaking the same language), that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.
At some point all 12 tribes of Israel will speak Hebrew.
Maybe. The Septuagint is clear about the virgin birth whereas the Hebrew could cast doubt among some.
To be clear, as you saying there were copies of the original text of the OT available for the NT writers to read?
Sir, they were copies of copies with transmission errors embedded. Not actual copies of the original autographs.
They may have well been copying copies of copies. But they were excellent copies existing in the 1st century AD. They were far more accurate than what has come to us . There are no errors originally in the New Testament. That includes quotations of the Old Covenant into the New Covenants writings. The Apostles and their companions had far more accurate manuscript than what has come down to us in the later Masoretic Tradition as well as our Septuagint Manuscripts.