Translating OT from Septuagint

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Jerome was saying that because of the revision done by Origen of the LXX that it became very unreliable in the text and in many places quite different to the Hebrew. The other versions were anti Christian in ways but more nearer the Hebrew

Perhaps this is missing the obvious, but is the contention here that Origen destroyed all earlier copies of LXX, or that there was only the one to which his edits were made in copying and then that one destroyed?

Again, where are the extant Jewish-controlled versions of the Greek kept?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Perhaps this is missing the obvious, but is the contention here that Origen destroyed all earlier copies of LXX, or that there was only the one to which his edits were made in copying and then that one destroyed?

Again, where are the extant Jewish-controlled versions of the Greek kept?

It is a very detailed and complexed study which I started a few years ago but have mislaid my notes. The 3 2nd century works are preserved in critical editions of the LXX which I have. I am more interested in the Hebrew text and the DSS to some extent. This whole area of study is very time consuming

 

[Conan]

Perhaps this is missing the obvious, but is the contention here that Origen destroyed all earlier copies of LXX, or that there was only the one to which his edits were made in copying and then that one destroyed?

Again, where are the extant Jewish-controlled versions of the Greek kept?

Origen was a preserver of texts, not a destroyer at all. In Origens Septuagint collum he made marks indicating things in the Hebrew but not in the Greek. He also made marks indicating things in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. Later copiers misunderstanding the marks did not accurately copy the marks blending the two.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Origen was a preserver of texts, not a destroyer at all. In Origens Septuagint collum he made marks indicating things in the Hebrew but not in the Greek. He also made marks indicating things in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. Later copiers misunderstanding the marks did not accurately copy the marks blending the two.

Jerome who was one of the greatest Biblical scholars disagrees with your assumptions. And he should know better

 

[Conan]

Jerome who was one of the greatest Biblical scholars disagrees with your assumptions. And he should know better

Jerome is the one who I got the above information from!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is a very detailed and complexed study which I started a few years ago but have mislaid my notes. The 3 2nd century works are preserved in critical editions of the LXX which I have. I am more interested in the Hebrew text and the DSS to some extent. This whole area of study is very time consuming

AFAICT so far, the matter isn't merely complex but highly contentious, involving voices from the Latin west, the Greek east, and the Hebrew diaspora, all of which have a dogma in the fight.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Jerome is the one who I got the above information from!

Can you share what you have from Jerome where he says Origens LXX work is reliable

 

[JonC]

Can you share what you have from Jerome where he says Origens LXX work is reliable

Is this the same Jerome who insisted on the perpetual virginity of Mary and that Jesus had no brothers?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Is this the same Jerome who insisted on the perpetual virginity of Mary and that Jesus had no brothers?

what has this got to do with textual studies? Thayer's Greek lexicon is one of the most widely used by Evangelical Christians, and he was a Unitarian and denies the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Desiderius Erasmus' Greek text is the basis of many a English version, and this guy was not "Evengeilcal"!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

what has this got to do with textual studies? Thayer's Greek lexicon is one of the most widely used by Evangelical Christians, and he was a Unitarian and denies the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Desiderius Erasmus' Greek text is the basis of many a English version, and this guy was not "Evengeilcal"!

The point is, or should be, that credentials, even of a prophet, are not sufficient authority. Everything must be tested. Some experts may not like this, but everyone is subject to bias and logical fallacy in their views and arguments. This is a fundamental principle for those seeking truth.

 

[Conan]

Can you share what you have from Jerome where he says Origens LXX work is reliable

Look at it this way. What would be the most valuable of all to Textual Criticism of The Old Testament. Origens Hexapla. Even if we only had his Septuagint column with obelisks and asterisks intact we would have the original Septuagint from at least Origens day. Origen did not corrupt it. He left marks behind (as Jerome said) but later copyist misunderstood the marks and did not accurately copy them. That's where the corruption came in. When Jerome said origen corrupted it, it was in response to Augustine asking why he didn't use Origens Septuagint column. In otherwords he used propaganda for a lack of better terms.

Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures

 

[JonC]

what has this got to do with textual studies? Thayer's Greek lexicon is one of the most widely used by Evangelical Christians, and he was a Unitarian and denies the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Desiderius Erasmus' Greek text is the basis of many a English version, and this guy was not "Evengeilcal"!

I was asking if this is the same Jerome.

I like Gordon Fee. He is pentecostal.

It does go to discernment, I suppose. We all make those decisions.

 

[Conan]

what has this got to do with textual studies? Thayer's Greek lexicon is one of the most widely used by Evangelical Christians, and he was a Unitarian and denies the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Desiderius Erasmus' Greek text is the basis of many a English version, and this guy was not "Evengeilcal"!

I believe that is false witness about Thayer. People seem to trace it back to Green only.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Look at it this way. What would be the most valuable of all to Textual Criticism of The Old Testament. Origens Hexapla. Even if we only had his Septuagint column with obelisks and asterisks intact we would have the original Septuagint from at least Origens day. Origen did not corrupt it. He left marks behind (as Jerome said) but later copyist misunderstood the marks and did not accurately copy them. That's where the corruption came in. When Jerome said origen corrupted it, it was in response to Augustine asking why he didn't use Origens Septuagint column. In otherwords he used propaganda for a lack of better terms.

Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures

If I'm reading this correctly, Jerome states that Origen included in his Greek version in his Hexapla "obelisks" indicating where LXX exceeds the Hebrew and also "asterisks" indicating where Theodotion exceeded the Hebrew. Furthermore, nearly all of the extant library copies of the time already contained the latter. Jerome thus indicated that LXX had already been widely corrupted by the inclusion of these Theodotion additions. In other words, per Jerome, what is termed LXX is not really, unless those Theodotion additions are removed.

So, my question is, does what is called LXX today have those Theodotion additions, or have they been removed? Do we have both versions?

 

[JonC]

While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3). Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration.

It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or for the way or process by which they are translated into other languages including into English.

I agree. The idea that God inspired translations is, IMHO, contrary to Scripture (it's what I call "double inspiration" and is the hallmark of cults around the world).

This is the issue I have with KJVO. No matter how they define it, it goes back to believing God inspired the KJV translators.

 

[Conan]

The goal I believe in Septuagint Textual Criticism would be the Old Greek, the original translation, or even translations from the 3rd/2nd century BC. I believe we have mixes and different translations at different times. I think we only have part of a Syraic translation that preserves the asterisks/obelisks. It sure goes deeper than just a Origen LXX and Theodotions additions I believe.

 

[Conan]

If I'm reading this correctly, Jerome states that Origen included in his Greek version in his Hexapla "obelisks" indicating where LXX exceeds the Hebrew and also "asterisks" indicating where Theodotion exceeded the Hebrew. Furthermore, nearly all of the extant library copies of the time already contained the latter. Jerome thus indicated that LXX had already been widely corrupted by the inclusion of these Theodotion additions. In other words, per Jerome, what is termed LXX is not really, unless those Theodotion additions are removed.

So, my question is, does what is called LXX today have those Theodotion additions, or have they been removed? Do we have both versions?

If those additions have been removed then we would have Origens LXX. I do not believe that we do in a pure form.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Perhaps this BibleHub excerpt on Origen helps explain Augustine's reluctance to adopt Jerome's position (there is considerably more information available through the link):

...
It was Origen's belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin Martyr's Dial. with Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired translation, as it was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true form of Scripture. For two centuries before and more than a century after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original tongue. Early in the second century (as Schürer points out) various causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even before the second century, that the various versions already mentioned took their rise.
...

Origen's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.​

 

[SavedByGrace]

This is a fundamental principle for those seeking truth.

The ONLY Fundamental principle for those who are seeking Bible Truth, is the Guiding of the Holy Spirit in all that we do. As He ALONE is able to teach us what Truth really is!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Look at it this way. What would be the most valuable of all to Textual Criticism of The Old Testament. Origens Hexapla. Even if we only had his Septuagint column with obelisks and asterisks intact we would have the original Septuagint from at least Origens day. Origen did not corrupt it. He left marks behind (as Jerome said) but later copyist misunderstood the marks and did not accurately copy them. That's where the corruption came in. When Jerome said origen corrupted it, it was in response to Augustine asking why he didn't use Origens Septuagint column. In otherwords he used propaganda for a lack of better terms.

Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures

because of the state of the LXX text at the time of Jerome, and the numerous variant reading, Jerome perferred the OT Greek version by Symmachus, which is found in the fourth colum in Origen's Hexapla, which he used for the Latin Vulgate. This Greek OT is from the 2nd century A.D., and one of three, the others being that by Aquila and Theodotion