Why was the Septuagint Never Brought Into the Canon?

[JesusFan]

As it appeared to be the Bible of choicefor the Apostols themselves, at least when they quotes/refernced OT!

 

[glfredrick]

You do realize that the Septugint is nothing more than a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, right?

It is a very helpful tool, but to use it as the basis for translation when it is itself a translation equals making the end product of the OT a paraphrase.

Best to return to the oldest reliable Hebrew manuscripts, which is precisely what was done, and they confirmed by the later discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which had older still text that agreed remarkably with the versions used for the OT.

 

[JesusFan]

You do realize that the Septugint is nothing more than a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, right?

It is a very helpful tool, but to use it as the basis for translation when it is itself a translation equals making the end product of the OT a paraphrase.

Best to return to the oldest reliable Hebrew manuscripts, which is precisely what was done, and they confirmed by the later discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which had older still text that agreed remarkably with the versions used for the OT.

just was wondering why the Apostles seemed to "prefer" it over the established inspired Ot Text? One of the Canon?

 

[JesusFan]

You do realize that the Septugint is nothing more than a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, right?

It is a very helpful tool, but to use it as the basis for translation when it is itself a translation equals making the end product of the OT a paraphrase.

Best to return to the oldest reliable Hebrew manuscripts, which is precisely what was done, and they confirmed by the later discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which had older still text that agreed remarkably with the versions used for the OT.

Wished still had the Dr Gleason Archer text book that was the OT quotes in the NT, comparing the Ot to the LXX every time quoted by Apostles in NT!

 

[preachinjesus]

just was wondering why the Apostles seemed to "prefer" it over the established inspired Ot Text? One of the Canon?

Do you like to read the Greek or English translations available?

 

[JesusFan]

Do you like to read the Greek or English translations available?

In their case, seemed to want to stay with the one inspired by the HS!

 

[glfredrick]

just was wondering why the Apostles seemed to "prefer" it over the established inspired Ot Text? One of the Canon?

Because at the time of the Apostles very few people had a good working knowledge of Hebrew. Aramaic was the language of the people, as was Greek. A Greek translation would be most accessable.

Specialized scholars in Alexandria, Egypt realized that few people were left that knew Hebrew, so they undertood a translation into Greek circa 250 BC. That is important for more than one reason beside the historical aspect. It also defuses those who wish to claim that the references to Messiah as prophecy were written into the OT after the fact. Nope... Cannot be, as the OT was already translated 250 years or so before any of that happend!

:godisgood::godisgood::godisgood:

 

[glfredrick]

Wished still had the Dr Gleason Archer text book that was the OT quotes in the NT, comparing the Ot to the LXX every time quoted by Apostles in NT!

All you have to do is ask... :laugh:



http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Note the "INSERTIONS" by the AV (otherwise known as the KJV).

 

[jbh28]

As it appeared to be the Bible of choicefor the Apostols themselves, at least when they quotes/refernced OT!

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT. It's not separate books, only a translation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

As it appeared to be the Bible of choicefor the Apostols themselves, at least when they quotes/refernced OT!

I know that these are probably not the responses you were trying to elicit --

But technically, the LXX was not available as a 'Bible' in the 1st century AD. It would likely have only existed in the form of separate scrolls at that time, and it would be doubtful that a common individual would own a complete set of the scrolls. Also, every scroll was a manuscript (and as a hand-copied document was subject to transmission variants). Therefore, it may have been that the NT writers did not always have a document before them when they 'quoted' the OT (but rather, it was from their well-exercised memory).

But essentially, the LXX did become canonized; that is, virtually all of the books now found in 3rd/4th century Christian Greek codices (there was no standard table of contents) would become regarded as canonical by the established 'church', including some material we would now consider apocryphal.

 

[JesusFan]

I know that these are probably not the responses you were trying to elicit --

But technically, the LXX was not available as a 'Bible' in the 1st century AD. It would likely have only existed in the form of separate scrolls at that time, and it would be doubtful that a common individual would own a complete set of the scrolls. Also, every scroll was a manuscript (and as a hand-copied document was subject to transmission variants). Therefore, it may have been that the NT writers did not always have a document before them when they 'quoted' the OT (but rather, it was from their well-exercised memory).

But essentially, the LXX did become canonized; that is, virtually all of the books now found in 3rd/4th century Christian Greek codices (there was no standard table of contents) would become regarded as canonical by the established 'church', including some material we would now consider apocryphal.

Were the Apostles "allowed" by the HS to use the Lxx in their quotes and interpretations?

 

[beameup]

I know that these are probably not the responses you were trying to elicit --

But technically, the LXX was not available as a 'Bible' in the 1st century AD. It would likely have only existed in the form of separate scrolls at that time, and it would be doubtful that a common individual would own a complete set of the scrolls. Also, every scroll was a manuscript (and as a hand-copied document was subject to transmission variants). Therefore, it may have been that the NT writers did not always have a document before them when they 'quoted' the OT (but rather, it was from their well-exercised memory).

But essentially, the LXX did become canonized; that is, virtually all of the books now found in 3rd/4th century Christian Greek codices (there was no standard table of contents) would become regarded as canonical by the established 'church', including some material we would now consider apocryphal.

It would be nice if we had hard evidence that the early Septuagint was kept in the synagogues in the Roman Empire and that early Christians referred to those (like in Berea).

 

[Jerome]

Found this at OrthodoxWiki:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

the Orthodox Church continues to regard the LXX as its only canonical text of the Old Testament

Perhaps it is "canonical text" rather than the Canon (list of books) that the OP is trying to ask about?

 

[JesusFan]

Found this at OrthodoxWiki:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint



Perhaps it is "canonical text" rather than the Canon (list of books) that the OP is trying to ask about?

yes, based upon the Apostles seeming to use it as "version" of choice, why was the Lxx not used as the OT text by early church?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Perhaps it is "canonical text" rather than the Canon (list of books) that the OP is trying to ask about?

Oh! That is a different question.