-
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!
The "Septuagint" - Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter DocCas
- Start date
DocCas
New Member
Tom, that's what we get for being to subtle! It goes right over the heads of some of our guests! I too was being facetious with my above post, trying to subtly indicate that the proper place for this discussion was on the other thread, but I guess we just have to use a baseball bat on some people to get them to understand! 
Hello. I don't want to interrupt any arguments you may be engaged in as respects the LXX. I am no expert either when it comes to the same. But I did find an interesting website the other day which discusses the LXX. I do not know the man's denominational affilitation nor any other thing about him. I will give the link here.
http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm
It may be well worth checking out for whatever it is worth. The man seems to give solid arguments for that Christ and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT. It would be interesting to hear from you who are better educated and more well versed in the sacred writings what you think about what this man has to say, whether he is a complete fraud or whether he really makes a point.
Harald
http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm
It may be well worth checking out for whatever it is worth. The man seems to give solid arguments for that Christ and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT. It would be interesting to hear from you who are better educated and more well versed in the sacred writings what you think about what this man has to say, whether he is a complete fraud or whether he really makes a point.
Harald
True it is possible to say that there is no manuscript evidence, but the same thing can be said for other issues which we discuss on this subject matter such as Byzantine text superiority, etc.
The best evidence the LXX existed in Christ's day is that too many quotations in old manuscripts from both Christ and New Testament authors are almost exact quotations of the LXX. Since it comes straight across in the Greek Language (although there is some difference between the two styles of Greek) the quotations must be more than coincidental.
First, I think there is a little confusion among different people as to the definition of "fact", "hypothesis" and "theory". Based on actual scientific definitions--- then there is very little "factual" evidence of any of our arguments on Biblical origins. So, as long as we understand that the use of "fact" in the preceding discussions is not necessarily the scientific version of the word "fact" then we can be discussing at the same level. Most Biblical origin information is under the "theoretical" and much under the "hypothetical" categories, so the lack of actual "fact" regarding the LXX means little to this discussion.
A few points called fact:
* Jeremiah 44:26 appears to be out of context. But, I will study this further before making judgment.
* Yes, Christ never quoted the apocrypha that the LXX contained, and if he quoted from Hebrew scripture he did not quote apocrypha from it either, because it was not meant to be part of the canon. For instance, if this argument destroys the idea of the LXX it also destroys the idea that the Byzantine textform is qualified.
* Actually, the LXX being referred to as the work of Satan is inaccurate by the majority. As a matter of fact, even secular history admits that the LXX was considered for three hundred or more years that it was just as inspired as the King James version is to KJVO groups today.
* How can it be held as "fact" that the letter of Aristeas did not exist and is a fraud. Could you please provide the proof for this?
* According to secular scholars the only uncertain book of our existing old testament that may have been added to the Septuagint was Daniel which may have been added from a later translation of Hebrew, but after the revision of Jamnia.
* Quote from "The Book A History of the Bible" -- even this book takes a Secular view of Biblical origins which would be based more on hard historical evidence than Catholic traditions:
" The first Christians knew and used the Septuagint in Greek. It was the only body of Scripture known to Saint Paul, for the Gospels did not yet exist as a written text when he was first preaching Christianity. His listeners spoke Greek. The Epistle to the Hebrews was doubtless written in Greek, not Hebrew. When Saint Paul invoked the Bible, he did so by reference to the Septuagint. The Gospel writers used it too. When the author of Saint Matthew's Gospel cites the prophecy of Isaiah in Mathew 1:23, he uses the phrasing of the Septuagint which differs very slightly from that of the text in Hebrew.
Many of the names of the books of the bible, familiar to us now as if they were proper nouns, are actually Greek words surviving from the Septuagint. Examples include genesis ('creation' in Greek) and exodos ('going out', the exit from Egypt). The title of Deuteronomy is from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 17:18, in which a good king is enjoined to write out a second copy of the Law and to honor and keep it. The two words deutero nomon literally mean 'second law'. Even the designation 'Bible' is a Greek word. The Jews had no generic title for the Scriptures. There is a reference to earlier prophecies in Daniel 9:2, where Daniel says he looked 'in the books', ha-sefarim in Hebrew. That is as near to a title as the Old Testament gives itself. It is translated entois bibliois in the Septuagint, from the pllural noun ta biblia. In Greek this literally meant 'the scrolls'. The Septuagint gives us the word 'Bible' by describing it as a collection of scrolls. So far as can be judged, the translation into Greek must have evolved over several generations, perhaps beginning around the third century B.C. A full and composite Septuagint text was certainly available by the first century before Christ. The date of Ptolemy Philadelphus is at least chronologically plausible for the beginning of the undertaking."
Apparently, other scholars view this as "hypothetical" and possibly even "theoretical" there is no way to be "factual" from a scientific point of view unless there was a latter day revelation from God and I don't believe in Joseph Smith's revelations.
Besides the conflicting views of the Septuagint, this indicates that different scholars have different views of its origin and therefore using the word "fact" for a "conclusion drawn" on a certain number of "hypothesized statements" is a bit too conclusive (short of a direct revelation from God).
The best evidence the LXX existed in Christ's day is that too many quotations in old manuscripts from both Christ and New Testament authors are almost exact quotations of the LXX. Since it comes straight across in the Greek Language (although there is some difference between the two styles of Greek) the quotations must be more than coincidental.
First, I think there is a little confusion among different people as to the definition of "fact", "hypothesis" and "theory". Based on actual scientific definitions--- then there is very little "factual" evidence of any of our arguments on Biblical origins. So, as long as we understand that the use of "fact" in the preceding discussions is not necessarily the scientific version of the word "fact" then we can be discussing at the same level. Most Biblical origin information is under the "theoretical" and much under the "hypothetical" categories, so the lack of actual "fact" regarding the LXX means little to this discussion.
A few points called fact:
* Jeremiah 44:26 appears to be out of context. But, I will study this further before making judgment.
* Yes, Christ never quoted the apocrypha that the LXX contained, and if he quoted from Hebrew scripture he did not quote apocrypha from it either, because it was not meant to be part of the canon. For instance, if this argument destroys the idea of the LXX it also destroys the idea that the Byzantine textform is qualified.
* Actually, the LXX being referred to as the work of Satan is inaccurate by the majority. As a matter of fact, even secular history admits that the LXX was considered for three hundred or more years that it was just as inspired as the King James version is to KJVO groups today.
* How can it be held as "fact" that the letter of Aristeas did not exist and is a fraud. Could you please provide the proof for this?
* According to secular scholars the only uncertain book of our existing old testament that may have been added to the Septuagint was Daniel which may have been added from a later translation of Hebrew, but after the revision of Jamnia.
* Quote from "The Book A History of the Bible" -- even this book takes a Secular view of Biblical origins which would be based more on hard historical evidence than Catholic traditions:
" The first Christians knew and used the Septuagint in Greek. It was the only body of Scripture known to Saint Paul, for the Gospels did not yet exist as a written text when he was first preaching Christianity. His listeners spoke Greek. The Epistle to the Hebrews was doubtless written in Greek, not Hebrew. When Saint Paul invoked the Bible, he did so by reference to the Septuagint. The Gospel writers used it too. When the author of Saint Matthew's Gospel cites the prophecy of Isaiah in Mathew 1:23, he uses the phrasing of the Septuagint which differs very slightly from that of the text in Hebrew.
Many of the names of the books of the bible, familiar to us now as if they were proper nouns, are actually Greek words surviving from the Septuagint. Examples include genesis ('creation' in Greek) and exodos ('going out', the exit from Egypt). The title of Deuteronomy is from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 17:18, in which a good king is enjoined to write out a second copy of the Law and to honor and keep it. The two words deutero nomon literally mean 'second law'. Even the designation 'Bible' is a Greek word. The Jews had no generic title for the Scriptures. There is a reference to earlier prophecies in Daniel 9:2, where Daniel says he looked 'in the books', ha-sefarim in Hebrew. That is as near to a title as the Old Testament gives itself. It is translated entois bibliois in the Septuagint, from the pllural noun ta biblia. In Greek this literally meant 'the scrolls'. The Septuagint gives us the word 'Bible' by describing it as a collection of scrolls. So far as can be judged, the translation into Greek must have evolved over several generations, perhaps beginning around the third century B.C. A full and composite Septuagint text was certainly available by the first century before Christ. The date of Ptolemy Philadelphus is at least chronologically plausible for the beginning of the undertaking."
Apparently, other scholars view this as "hypothetical" and possibly even "theoretical" there is no way to be "factual" from a scientific point of view unless there was a latter day revelation from God and I don't believe in Joseph Smith's revelations.
Besides the conflicting views of the Septuagint, this indicates that different scholars have different views of its origin and therefore using the word "fact" for a "conclusion drawn" on a certain number of "hypothesized statements" is a bit too conclusive (short of a direct revelation from God).
nam4christ
New Member
Thomas Cassidy,
Thank you for sharing your views on the Septuagint. What reading I have done on the subject has led me to a similar position. I thought I was the only one. Most of those that have gone before me, and to whom I look to for guidance as I learn seem to accept as fact that the Septuagint was an pre-Christian era Greek Bible used by Jesus and His disciples, though there is no evidence to prove it. The similarities in the Septuagint and the New testament could be easily explained by the fact that the New Testament already existed when Origin did his work giving the Septuagint the appearance of being the source. From what I have studied about Origin I wouldn't be surprised at such an deviuos act. But I am sure I will catch some flack for agreeing with you. I wish I had your wisdom on the subject, but give me some time I just getting started. But you are not alone on this one.-ALM
Thank you for sharing your views on the Septuagint. What reading I have done on the subject has led me to a similar position. I thought I was the only one. Most of those that have gone before me, and to whom I look to for guidance as I learn seem to accept as fact that the Septuagint was an pre-Christian era Greek Bible used by Jesus and His disciples, though there is no evidence to prove it. The similarities in the Septuagint and the New testament could be easily explained by the fact that the New Testament already existed when Origin did his work giving the Septuagint the appearance of being the source. From what I have studied about Origin I wouldn't be surprised at such an deviuos act. But I am sure I will catch some flack for agreeing with you. I wish I had your wisdom on the subject, but give me some time I just getting started. But you are not alone on this one.-ALM
DocCas
New Member
SuperDave: Are you saying the word "Fact" has a different meansing when used in reference to the LXX? How can speculation become fact without any factual evidence to support it?
fact n. 1. Information presented as objectively real. 2. A real occurrence; an event. 3.a. Something having real, demonstrable existence. b. The quality of being real or actual. 4. A thing that has been done, especially a crime. 5. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence. --idiom. in (point of) fact. In reality or in truth; actually.
fact n. 1. Information presented as objectively real. 2. A real occurrence; an event. 3.a. Something having real, demonstrable existence. b. The quality of being real or actual. 4. A thing that has been done, especially a crime. 5. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence. --idiom. in (point of) fact. In reality or in truth; actually.