This is the difference. I do not see it as useful. I do not see anything that did not follow the Massorah in and during copying or in this case, translation as useful.

Alexandria Egypt has never had anything good come out of it. Yes, I know that is a long shot, but no recorded thing in the bible or anything that has to do with the bible has ever been recorded as "good", in accordance with our present discussion.

The differences between the Hebrew and the LXX is my point. I don't claim to hold to it. I am just saying that the 70 men that translated it are using their interpretations to base the translations. The differences in the text help us to see what they believed. That part can be useful to see where error begins or shapes.

OK, I see what you mean. I guess I tend to lean more towards my life having been dedicated to studying those things which we know to be good, and relying on those.

Yes, if a person wants to study some reason for those 70-72 Jewish Scholars (They were'nt Hebrew mind you, but you probably already know this) to translate something that was never intended for them, then yes, it could be of some historical significance, but I choose not to go those routes. In our time of blasphemy and sacrilege, we as christians, need to know God's Holy Word more and more, because Satan most certainly is walking about, and we have to remain sharp in God's Word to be ready to give that answer o those who don't know.

I am beding myself to know the Word of God intimately, and I find the argument over the KJV issue a fruitless one that only takes away from my dedication of time to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hope you understand my position, but I do understand what you are sayign here. The historical significance to Egypt is a good one.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Do you believe the NT writers ever quoted from the LXX? I am only asking to see what you think the NT writers view of the LXX was. I don't think it was a great translation, but if it was as corrupt as you say, why would they even use it? That is why I am asking if you think they did use it at all. What do you think?

That is a good question. I am not 100% sure they did. You may know more about that than I would.

If the KJV or preserved TR line was as important to the NT translators referring to the HOT and LXX, in their English translations, which I think it was, then I do not believe they would have referenced it, or more accurately, used it for translation.

I mean, why would they have? They were translating the English OT from the Masoretic Hebrew texts, which were passed down from the people in which were desgned to have. There would be no purpose to translate from another source that was a translation, especially from Alexandria.

That is also the reason that the Vulgate and many other Latin texts were not really referenced, or any of the ALexandrian line of texts during the NT translation.

The whole thing boils down to the locale of Alexandria. It was the center for philosophical learning, but also the center for liberal thinking and corruption. It would be no surprise that things would be deliberately altered down there to parallel there ideas.

Love in Christ,

Jim

I am not referring to the KJV or the TR. I am talking about the original writers of Scripture. Did they ever use the LXX? I would say that in a comparison between the 2, if they didn't, then it is quite a coincidence in the similarities.

My logic in asking is this: if the original recorders of God's written revelation did use the LXX, then is it reasonable to assume that it is not corrupt? It may not be perfect, but adequate to convey the Hebrew message. I can think of a passage in Acts 2 where Peter quotes Joel 2 from the LXX. He does change a few things (probably for interpretive purposes) but the majority of his OT quotations almost perfectly match the LXX. What do you think?

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 19, 2008 03:10 PM by Greektim.

Gotcha.

Another question, did the autographers use the OT at all?

But if they did, which they most likely did, it is very unlikely that they used the LXX.

1) The autographers were all of the Judaic faith, and they were all Hebrew. They would have had no association with Egypt.

2) The LXX was in Greek. The autographers would most likely have not referred to a language outside of their faith in scriptural matters, especially from a location that was known for corruption, and where their ancestors were held in captivity for 400 years.

3) They would not have erred from the Massorah. This would have been bred within them through their culture. As corrupt as the Pharisees and Sadducees were, they still held with the Judaic faith and the Torah and Pentateuch.

I know this is a lot of conjecture, but I feel they are rational points to think about.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 19, 2008 03:23 PM by Jim.

I think the conjecture of your 2nd statement is a little off. After all they did write the NT in Greek. It would make sense for them to quote a translation that was already in the language they are writing in. Also, if it was as famous as most seem to think, then it might have been better known to some, especially Hellinistic Jews living in Roman provinces and cities.

YOu do make a good point as their avoidance of the LXX simply due to its source from Egypt. I have never thought of that. It is also likely that they may not have known a lot of Hebrew. By the end of the Babylonian exile, the vast majority of the Jews only knew Aramaic (thus it was translated from Hebrew to Greek Neh. 8:. It is possible that the NT writers only knew the Hebrew that they quoted from the OT text. It is also amazing that they knew as much of the OT as they did since they did not have any formal training. Again this is conjecture though.

Also to answer your question of their use of the OT, I don't know how anyone can legitamately say they didn't use it. Just look up the number of times the NT says "as it is written."

There is certainly information available that refutes the very existence of a complete OT in Greek prior to the work of Origen 300+ years after Christ. There may be some evidence that possibly the books of the Law were translated earlier. See Moorman's book, Forever Settled. The translation by "70" men is based almost exclusively on legend. There is opinion that Origen or someone connected with him produced the LXX and that IT copied from the NT, not the other way around.

Well I am certainly not trying to defend the LXX. I just started in this conversation to point out that Augustine was a LXX only believer. Thats all. I will admit I have never heard of the idea that the LXX was post-Christ. That is interesting. I will have to do some research on that. Thank you.

The Septuagint was most likely produced sometime after the close of the NT canon - 70AD to 230AD. No one has ever produced a quote by any of the NT writers that came from the LXX.

I think I could produce quite a few quotes, but I fear that whatever I present, it will be dismissed as either coincidence or it will be assumed that the LXX quoted from the NT. I am going to do more research today on the dates of the LXX, but I have a hard time believing a Post-NT date simply because men like Philo and Josephus referenced to it. Again, this is awkward for me to defend the LXX when I would much rather cling to the HOT. So we will see how far this goes.

That there may have been one of more Greek translations of portions of the OT during the period prior to and including the NT times is a possibility, as lease from a logical standpoint. The influences of the Greek empire and its language could have produced some translation work. That the LXX was that translation is just as illogical. It has been generally accepted that it was Alexandrian in origin, regardless of the dating, based on the particular Greek dialect used. It would seem improbable that the Jews of Judea and Galilee would have embraced it as the replacement to the Hebrew, much less would they have had general availability of such a copy.

We should distinguish between the LXX and any other possible Greek translations which may have existed.

(I am still assuming that the LXX was a BC document) To quote from the LXX does not mean an embracement of the text. It seems logical to me that if the NT writers are quoting from the OT and writing in Greek, why not use a Greek translation. They don't have to accept it, just use it for clarity sake.

I only started in this conversation because I thought it was interesting that some early Christians held to the LXX as being the inspired sacred Scriptures above the Hebrew text. I thought I would pass on that tid bit of info to others. I have referenced the LXX in different research papers just to compare them to the NT quote of the OT. A translation that is not literal can give insight to the interpretation of the translator (which should not be done in a translation). That is what you can do with the LXX.