SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

The LXX [Septuagint] appears to be highly regarded in Christian circles. I have heard many say that Jesus and the disciples quoted from it because the NT quotes of the OT are more favorably comparable to the LXX than the Hebrew OT.

The LXX is a Greek translation of the OT. It is said that 72 Jewish scribes translated it from Hebrew to Greek a couple of centuries BC. In fact, they only translated the first five books. It is unknown who translated the rest of it the OT into Greek.

Because of a lot of research that has been done, it has been proved by experts that the LXX has been through four recensions in the past several hundred years. However, with the discovery of the DSS [Dead Sea Scrolls - Qumran] in which some fragments of the LXX were found, the information that Jesus/disciples quoted from it has been proved to be completely false. What seems to be the answer is that the 4th recension of the LXX was "smoothed" to match the NT. The four recensions do not agree with each other and the 4th which is used today as "authoritive" only matches at less than 5% to the DSS LXX.

A new twist that I was not aware of is that some are saying that there was no LXX pre BC. Which is kind of like putting your hands over your ears and singing "la la la la" in order to drown out the truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain frags from the original BC LXX, according to Emanuel Tov [Editor-in-Chief, Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project] of Israel, who did an in-depth study on this.

Tov's credentials:

http://www.jewishhistory.huji.ac.il/Prof...e/tov.html

Quote: [Tov] quote:

"1. Qumran. This community considered itself to be the true remnant of Israel, and was thusly even more 'pure' than the Pharisees of the day. This community is associated with those documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are dated in three periods: Archaic (250-150 bc), Hasmonean (150-30 BC), and Herodian (30 bc-70 ad). These Dead Sea Scrolls show usage of LXX, Samaritan, and various proto-MT textual traditions. One of the standard TC works today is Emmanual Tov of Hebrew University [OT:TCHB]. Only 60% of the texts found there agree with the MT (OT:TCHB:115). That's leaves 40% that vary. Let me show this from some of his material.

"Before the Qumran discoveries S [symbol for Samaritan text] was thought to be an ancient text, whose nature could not be determined more precisely beyond its popular character. However, since the discovery in Qumran of texts which are exceedingly close to S, this situation has changed...The best preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExod(m) of which large sections of 44 columns from Exodus 6 to 37 have been preserved...The main feature characterizing these texts is the appearance of harmonizing additions within Exodus and Numbers taken from Deuteronomy...This feature links these texts exclusively with S." [OT:TCHB:97-99. He also lists 4Q158 and 4Qtest (=4Q175) as following S.]The LXX is a Greek translation, of course, so we would not expect to see it among the DSS. However, it DOES show up in fragments there(!), and since it was translated from a Palestinian Hebrew original, we also find some documents that are related to that original. Also, it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:

"The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent." [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]He points out that "Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts" [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195]. Let me be clear about one thing, though. I am NOT suggesting that the Hebrew Text underlying the LXX was itself a major substrate in the DSS; merely, that the various textual traditions at Qumran had knowledge of this strain of text. It is at best a minor aspect of the DSS, as it is a minority piece of the NT quotations (as seen in the previous discussion)."

http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/LXX_mt2.html

And this from another source with no link available:

Quote:"Emanuel Tov did a survey of the the Hebrew Torah mss/fragments found
at Qumran. There were forty six books of Torah related manuscripts
which were used for this particular comparison. Of the forty six,
twenty four (52%) were aligned with the Masoretic textual family.
Seventeen of the forty six (37%) did not align to the MT, the LXX, or
the Samaritan Pentateuch. Three manuscripts (6.5%) were aligned to the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and two manuscripts (4.5%) aligned with the LXX."

Mr Robert A Kraft [University of Pennsylvania] published a paper on the Greek frags of the DSS which attest to the fragments shown in the link below [Job, Lev, Hab, Zach, Gen, Deut] - which show several proofs of the existence of Greek OT texts from Qumran, which are commonly referred to as the LXX:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxjewpap/tetragram.jpg

Here are more samples of the Greek Scriptures, which are referred to as the [BCE] LXX from Qumran:

Greek LXX with paleo tetragrammaton: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxmprstetr.jpg

Greek with paleo Hebrew tetragrammaton: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxmprstetr.jpg

Greek minor prophets with paleo tetragrammaton: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsA.jpg

Psalms with paleo: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/images/psalm-b.jpg


Any thoughts?

The LXX is wonderful. It makes it easy to study the NT and OT side by side in the Koine Greek. Ofcourse the Hebrew is better for OT exegesis but if your are comparing OT and NT texts then the LXX is a great tool. If you know Greek but not Hebrew it is also preferable to study the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

What is amusing about the use of the LXX by those in the HR groups who fully reject the Greek manuscripts for the NT--hence the pagan greek scribes messed up the Hebrew originals--of which there are none---and they reject greek itself as being pagan--yet they will promote the Greek LXX.

Being double minded is one of their strong points.

(07-22-2009 03:28 AM)pastor_chris Wrote: [ -> ]The LXX is wonderful. It makes it easy to study the NT and OT side by side in the Koine Greek. Ofcourse the Hebrew is better for OT exegesis but if your are comparing OT and NT texts then the LXX is a great tool. If you know Greek but not Hebrew it is also preferable to study the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

I sort of did a double take here

I was kind of thinking that the information I posted proved that the LXX is not valid

Ok ........ I have two articles, one by Steve Avery, who does a ton of work and defense of the Bible. He is also a scholar of Hebrew and Greek.

The second set of quotes is from an article by FLOYD NOLEN JONES who did some major work exposing the LXX. I have provided some rather lengthy quotes, but interesting none-the-less. I provided the link at the end - it's fascinating reading

*note - you have to place your cursor within the box labeled as "code" to scroll down to read. I had to special code it in order for ease of reading from a pdf file.

Quote: ANCIENT "VERSIONS"

Historically there were editions around 200 AD, six main names come to mind.

ISBE on versions
http://books. google.com/ books?id= MHbhdA9U5EwC&pg=PA404

Aquila - proselyte to Judaism - one of Origen's columns 130 AD - some fragments extant
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Aquila_of_ Sinope

Symmachus - Ebionite - one of the Origens columns - fragments survive
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Symmachus_ the_Ebionite
http://bible. tmtm.com/ wiki/Symmachus

Theodotian - Jewish - one of Origen's columns
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Theodotion
http://bible. tmtm.com/ wiki/Theodotian

Origen

Lucian Recension

Hesychius Recension

And you have DSS and other early Greek fragments, possibly Old Latin fragments and various early church writer references, which may or may not match each other or any of the texts above. I do not think anyone has anything like a full edition of any of these, although the Daniel of Hesychius is give.

Some reasonable history in the Jellicoe book.

http://books. google.com/ books?id= Z_TiM53E32UC&pg=PA146
The Septuagint and Modern Study By Sidney Jellicoe (1968)
ALEXANDRIA and Egypt attribute the authorship of their Greek Old Testament to Hesychius. .. (Jerome)

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

LXX TODAY

Now in modern times you have about 3 differing LXX

Most modern Vaticanus editions are Vaticanus based.

http://biblical- studies.ca/ lxx/lxx_guide1. html

Brenton
The Greek text is based on codex Vaticanus, with Alexandrinus employed in a few spots where Vaticanus was mutilated --

Rahlf
Rahlfs based his text primarily on codex Vaticanus (B), but when necessary (and in his own opinion based on established text-critical principles) he adopts readings found in codex Alexandrinus (A) and codex Sinaiticus (S) so as to represent as closely as possible the "Old Greek" version of the text.

http://www.monachos .net/forum/ showthread. php?p=74665
an ecclesiastical Septuagint utilized by the Church of Greece and published by Apostoliki Diakonia

The genuine 'Orthodox edition' of the LXX can only be found scattered across the huge numbers of Liturgical texts that quote from it, and in the writings of the Fathers that do the same -- this is why it so difficult to determine the Orthodox reading of the text. If you are interested in deeply understanding the text itself, I would recommend that you obtain both Rahlfs' second edition and the A.D. (Apostoliki Diakonia) volume, so that you can see for yourself how the two relate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kingjamesb...ssage/4716

Quote:

Code:

Outside the Pentateuch some books, it seems, were divided between two translators working
simultaneously, while others were translated piecemeal at various times by different men using
widely diverse methods and vocabulary. Consequently the style varies from fairly good Koine Greek,
as in part of Joshua, to indifferent Greek, as in Chronicles, Psalms, the Minor Prophets, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and parts of Kings. Judges, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, and other parts of Kings
are worse – being so rigidly literal and often unintelligible.

Thus the Pentateuch is generally well done, especially as compared to the rest of the books contained
within the LXX. Still, it does occasionally paraphrase anthropomorphisms in a manner offensive to
Alexandrian Jews, disregards consistency in religious technical terms, and shows its impatience with
the repetitive technical descriptions in Exodus by mistakes, abbreviations, and wholesale omissions.
Yet comparatively few books in the LXX attain even to the standard of the Pentateuch; most are of
medium quality, some are very poor.

The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence".1 As a translation, it is not only bad; it is
the most inferior book within the LXX. H.B. Swete concludes that the Psalms are but little better.2
Esther, Job, and Proverbs are not faithful translations but merely free paraphrases. The original
LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with
interpretations from Theodotion (see under "Hexapla," p. 18).

Proverbs contains material not present in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely
altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was
replaced, perhaps within the first century A.D., by a later translation (generally attributed to
Theodotion, but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is
presently to be found in only two Greek MSS and the Syriac version. One of the translators of the
book of Jeremiah sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound
but utterly dissimilar meaning.

A careful investigation of these variations reveals that they are not the result of scribal errors, but
constitute editorial changes made with the object of correcting what were considered as "errors" in
the original Hebrew text. In no instance is a Greek variation an improvement over the Hebrew. The
fallacious nature of the Greek innovations may be proved by the wide divergence of the patterns of
reign that they call for from the years of contemporary chronology.

Even a cursory comparison between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text (as translated in
the King James Bible) clearly reveals that the Septuagint as it is today is highly inaccurate and
deficient as a translation. To attempt to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the
modern versions are trying to do) from such a loose, deficient and unacceptable translation would be
analogous to trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from The Living Bible

Upon examining two Septuagint Concordances for references, we are astonished to find not one word
from a Greek O.T. written before A.D. 120 that the Apostles quoted in the New Testament. There
exist no verses that any New Testament writer quoted from any Greek manuscript written prior to
120 A.D. We do find about a dozen quotations in the New Testament that match those found in
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus – but these two highly vaunted MSS were written nearly 250 years after
the N.T. was completed. We also find nearly a dozen quotations in them that do not match.
Thus we stand perplexed and frustrated. We have examined the origins of the LXX and found them
lacking, full of fable, myth, and legend.


WHY THEN DO CONSERVATIVES UPHOLD THE LXX?
If there is such a dearth of hard evidence to prove the existence of a pre-Christian Septuagint, the
question arises as to why such an entity is so universally accepted within fundamental conservative
circles? Why has the Christian community accepted almost by faith alone the salient parts of this
story? Other than that of "tradition", this author has been able to identify only two reasons why, in
conservative judgment, such a posture is deemed necessary.
A. TO DEFEND "VIRGIN" IN ISAIAH 7:14
The first2 is that the Septuagint is viewed in most conservative, Bible believing communities as the
chief obstacle in the path of the radical scholars who wish to change the translation of the Hebrew
word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 from "virgin" to "young woman."3
The immediate and decisive proof that "almah" means virgin in Isaiah is found in the inspired
declaration of the apostle Matthew: "Behold, a virgin [Greek = "parthenos" = parqeno"] shall be with
child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is,
God with us" (1:23).
The enemies of the Gospel have not hesitated to charge that Matthew misrepresented the content of
Isaiah. Aquila, the Ebionite (80-135 A.D.), conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew
1:23 was not the virgin Mary, but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila,
Jesus was the ***** son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German lineage named
"pantheras".4 Remember, Aquila translated "almah" into the Greek word "neanis" rather than
"parthenos" in order to perpetuate his hatred for the Christ.
The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T.5 It should be rendered "virgin"
in Isaiah for although "almah" could mean "young woman", every time it is used in the Old

Testament the context demands that it means "virgin". The other six times "almah" occurs, it is
translated virgin in nearly all of the various versions. One cannot but wonder as to why the sudden
departure was deemed necessary on the part of the translators in the particular verse before us. The
sign given to bring hope in a desperate situation was that a virgin was going to conceive! The
conception of some arbitrarily selected "young woman" would hardly have been taken as an assuring
prediction.
Moreover, all languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" is meant a word that
has many shades of meaning or even widely different meanings, i.e., the word "cool" in today's
English. Such words can defy etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words
which have a very limited narrow meaning – often they contain only one possible sense. We begin to
see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word to man in two tongues. Weak words
in one language, which could lead to confusion, can be covered by strong words in the other by cross
references and quotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah" (although
not so weak by its Biblical usage, as already noted) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word
"parthenos" which can only be translated "virgin". The translators of the modern versions are well
aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos"; hence, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into
any other word represents a deliberate willful alteration of the Word of God.
Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase,
not the dictionary definition or etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science.
It should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.

B. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE O.T. WAS TRANSLATED
The second reason is even less essential. It involves establishing, on the part of those who feel that
the Septuagint is a viable and necessary link in sustaining the faith, that the entire Old Testament
was translated into Greek by the 72 scholars and not merely the Pentateuch. The rational for this is
that the radicals, in espousing their theory of "Christological development," attempted to establish
that Aristeas and Josephus had declared that only the Law (the first 5 books of Moses) had been
translated into Greek.1 This was a shrewd move on their part, for the messianic predictions in those
5 books are relatively few and often obscure. Such a position enabled them to relegate to a later date
and an anonymous authorship the translation into Greek of all the prophetic books of the O.T. –
books which contain indisputable messianic predictions. This was done to make it seem that these
prophecies concerning Jesus were written after the fact.
At the time of Christ, Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the land of Palestine. Only the better
educated Jews were well versed in Hebrew – much as Latin was the language of the learned in
Europe and America during the past several hundred years. Most of the early Christians, Gentile orJew, read Greek and not Hebrew. The above stated move would therefore seemingly give credence to
the radical thesis that the doctrines of Jesus' divinity and messiahship "evolved" over a period of
time after His crucifixion, and that they were based upon late "unauthorized" translations that were
prepared for "special interest" sects. The radical critics proposed that these sects were being led by
men who were trying to "make" Jesus "seem" godlike and thus confer messiahship upon Him.
But attempting to counter such drivel by arguing that the term "the Law" can refer to the entire body
of Scripture and not to just the first five books (even though this is true i.e., see John 12:34 and I Cor.
14:21) is a waste of time and energy. In the first place Flavius Josephus, upon whom the radicals
appeal, affirms that the entire Old Testament had been written by the time of Artaxerxes
Longimanus (465-424 B.C.), the son of Xerxes.1 Most of the early Jewish converts would have heard
these messianic passages growing up, as they surely did, in the synagogue. Secondly, the premiere
Christian teacher and founder of churches during the apostolic period was Paul. As a Pharisee and a
"Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil.3:5), he would have been well established in the
Hebrew language. Paul could and would have taught from the original Hebrew text. Therefore all
the messianic prophesies were available to the early churches without the need of a Greek Old
Testament.
We hasten to add that nearly all scholars, especially those with a liberal bent, are of the opinion that
the writers of the New Testament did not confine themselves exclusively to either the Hebrew or the
LXX but randomly quoted from both. They assert that as many of the communities were unlearned
in Hebrew, the LXX took precedence in citations. They also insist that whenever the LXX was
inaccurate or did not give the sense, the writers of the N.T. forsook that version in order to give the
genuine meaning and import and then cited instead from the Hebrew.2 But in so stating, they shoot
themselves in the foot, for if the N.T. writers had to resort often to the Hebrew anyway, then the
language barrier argument that the Jews around Alexandria had forgotten their language and
therefore needed the Scriptures translated into Greek falls flat on its face. The fact is that the
Hebrew was cited both in gentile congregations and communities – and not infrequently. Why then
should they ever have turned to the LXX since inevitably they were going to have to appeal to the
Hebrew anyway?

Lastly, as we have the infallible Word available to us today in our own language as found in the 1611
King James Bible (the logical inexorable conclusion that exercising faith in God's many promises to
preserve His Word leads one) – we can see for ourselves that Jesus is the fulfillment of the
prophesies and is indeed the predicted Messiah of Israel, the Lord and Savior of the World. Thus
there is no need for any pre-Christian LXX, in either its entirety or the Law only.

The article in its entirety can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/2005122204202...rg/LXX.pdf

*please note that the writer indicates his doubt as to the veracity of BC LXX, but because of the evidence found at Qumran and the writings of archeaological findings, I do not believe he is correct on that point.