The age of the LXX: It is referenced on many occasions in the pre-Christian era. “The earliest writer who gives an account of the Septuagint version is Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at the commencement of the second century B.C. He says that the version of the Law into Greek was completed under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that Demetrius Phalerus had been employed about it” (quote from the intro of my copy of the LXX). The mention of the Greek translation of the OT was made in such a way that it referred to a popular text – most likely the LXX is the only choice in this case.

Here are a few examples of quotes from the LXX in the NT but not an exhaustive list by no means: The OT quote of…
1. Psalm 118:22 in Matt. 21:42 are in 99.9% agreement between the UBS & LXX and 100% between the TR & LXX (the difference being a v added at the end of the verb esti, the difference in the mss is probably a correction on the part of the copyist to update the grammar from the LXX Greek to the Koine Greek. This is an example where I would take the TR reading over the UBS).
2. Isaiah 53:1 in John 12:38 are in 99.9% agreement between the UBS & LXX and 100% agreement between the TR & LXX (Same difference as in Matt. 21:42 with a v missing. Interestingly, in John 12:40 there is a major difference from the LXX which is obviously not a quote from the LXX)
3. Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34-35 are in 100% agreement in the TR, UBS, & LXX
4. Psalm 132:1 in Rom. 4:7 are in 99% agreement between the UBS & LXX and 100% agreement between the TR & LXX (the differences between the UBS & LXX is a copyist correction again being one of grammar. Thus the TR is the better reading in this case). It is also interesting to note that Paul quotes a lot from the OT but not exclusively from the LXX. He varies probably depending on the quality of translation or his knowledge of certain passages in one translation over another. It is interesting that he would switch back and forth though.
5. Psalm 8:4-6 in Hebrews 2:6-8 are in 100% agreement between the TR & LXX (the UBS & LXX are in 100% agreement as well with the omission of a phrase of 9 words).
6. Lev. 19:18 in James 2:8 are in 100% agreement between the TR, UBS, & LXX
This high degree of agreement would argue for quotation. Obviously the NT quoting the LXX would support a pre-Christian writing. If one is to argue that the LXX quoted the NT (thus making it post-Chrsitian), that seems highly unlikely since the quotations are sporadic and infrequent. Why would the translators of the LXX use the NT as a source for some quotations and 2 verses later ignore the NT quotation of the OT? It doesn’t add up.

Something else to consider is the major difference between Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew is an audible language. It was meant to be spoken, read, and even studied out loud. That is why Hebrew did not have a vowel system as a part of the alphabet in its early stages. Any quotation from the HOT was always read aloud and it was memorized so much that only the consonants were needed for memory prodding. We can do the same thing with English consonants and vowels. Some consonant formations demand certain vowels. The same is even truer in Hebrew since some consonants are tied to vowels making them stronger vowels.

Proper Hebrew exegesis is usually done not through mechanical observations like tenses but in puns. For example, the Hebrew word for “evil” or “bad” is ra. If you know Egyptian theology, you know that the name of the Egyptian sun god is Ra. Thus the Hebrews made a play on words mocking the Egyptians. That is an important point as you read through the book of Exodus and come across the word ra. As for Greek, it is very rigid and mechanical. It is definitely a written language to be studied. Thus the tenses, voices, and moods of the verbals alone are extremely important (like the present tense of a non-indicative verbal does not have anything to do with time but carries the idea of continuation). That makes the LXX majorly inadequate to communicate the subtle puns and nuances of the Hebrew.

But let’s be frank, I am not sure that it matters all that much. Either way, the LXX has no bearing on the original autographs of the NT especially since inspiration goes to what is written not to the source that it is from. I would say that the LXX has nothing to do with the Bible that you have in your hand (KJV or otherwise).

With that said, I am tired of defending the LXX. As I said, I use it for reference and research only. I consult the HOT when exegeting the OT because it is the authority. The LXX is just some men’s translation (and sometimes interpretation) of the HOT.

Ok, I’m done. Sorry for the length.

All of that being said, if the Hebrew language was not as "mechanical" as the Greek(can that be applied?), then the Massorah would not have been as applicable as it was to keep copyists from making mistakes. It wold have taken a very mechanical script and laguage to have something like that applied to it.

Yes, they were also read. That was part of the execution of the Mosaic Covenant and Judaic law, the reading of scripture. The belief into scripture was so integrated in to the lives of the Jews, they wore (and many still wear) a phylactery as a representation of keeping Torah law:

Deut. 6:8
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.


I do believe it does matter very much. If the LXX and the MHOT disagree, then there is a problem. They both cannot be right...

Love in Christ,

Jim

I most appreciate two statements made by GreekTim:

This statement is fantastic! I don't know many KJBOs that could express inspiration so clearly!

and

I would, however, strike the parenthetic addition to the last sentence. I believe there are some modern texts that use LXX readings to override the MHOT. Some critics may argue that the KJB translators did use LXX readings, although I don't know where.

P.S. You guys wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure out what HOT meant. DUH! I had never seen that abbreviation used before now.

To this day, no scholar has EVER produced one Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300AD. The entire legend of the Septuagint rests on the flimsy support that the manuscripts written 200-400 years AFTER the death of Christ match the New Testament quotations! They should - all the writers of it had the New Testament on their desks! So GT, you're right when you say that the "LXX" quoted from the New Testament!

There is no manuscript evidence that any New Testament Christian wasted 5 minutes with a Greek OT that came out of Alexandria, or anywhere else. There is no evidence at all to support the untenable theory that any group of scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek between 250-150BC. What is referred to as the LXX (septuagint) is the corrupt Vaticanus MS (350AD), and Sinaticus MS(350AD) which contains "Bel and the Dragon", "Tobit", "Judith", etc. These were written by Eusebius or Pamphilus. This "LXX" was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon, and it is the only "LXX" anyone knows anything about. The entire legend of the "LXX" is based on one writing called "The Letter to Aristeas", a fabrication by Philo of ALEXANDRIA. The questions that "Ptolemy Philadelphus" asks the translators to test their proficiency, are the questions that a Greek pupil would ask Socrates or Plato. "Aristeas's letter", in the entire dialogue, doesn't have one question or answer relating to Bible translating, Bible doctrine, Bible truth, Biblical languages, or Bible preservation. Four pages into this letter, you're up on the "Stoa" with Epicurus and Zeno! Why would a group of translators from "12 tribes" (only God knew where the 12 tribes were in 250BC - there wasn't a priest in Jerusalem in 200BC that could find the genealogies of the 10 lost tribes of 2Kg17!) translate the OT into Greek, when the tribe of Levi ALONE, was entrusted with the job of being custodian of the scriptures? Mal.2:7, Deut 31:25, 17:18.
The only mention of a Greek translation of any OT before 350AD, lies in Origen's Hexapla. NONE of this "Hexapla" was written BEFORE the completion of the New Testament. The fact that Philo's "Letter to Aristeas" is at best, a spurious fabrication, the fact that the "LXX" contradicts the Hebrew OT text, the fact that the "Greeks seek wisdom" and resented the oracles of God being given to Israel, we should understand that the wisdom seekers (Gen 3:1-6) are still with us today. Neither Luther's Bible, nor the AV1611 EVER included the Apocrypha as part of the inspired oracles of God.
The pre-A.D. septuagint is a myth promoted by Bible rejecting professors in modern "Bible" colleges. Blind leaders of the blind.

This post was last modified: Fri Mar 21, 2008 03:11 AM by Mongol Servant.

I believe you misunderstood my remarks on the Hebrew language. The very fact that it was such an audible language would demand even more accuracy in the copy process. In that regard, it is mechanical. The rules of grammar, spelling, and syntax are also mechanical. But the focus in Hebrew exegesis is not on mechanics. The language itself is not mechanical. There is a difference between the actual language and the copying of that language. That is why there is so much poetry throughout the OT. If you were to hear it in the original Hebrew, you would hear the beauty and flow of the language (Greek is not so beautiful). That beauty and flow is lost in translation simply because the same words that pun and rhyme in Hebrew are likely not to rhyme in other languages.

Don't get me wrong, there are mechanics in Hebrew grammar, but nothing as important as the mechanics of Greek grammar. Therein lies the difference in exegesis. You don't look for the same things in Greek as you do in Hebrew (and vice versa). Good exegesis is more than word studies. It is understanding the nuances of the language you are dealing with. It is understanding what the writer of the text is trying to emphasize by using the nuances of the language. Since the nuances of Hebrew are not the same as Greek, they are very different from each other. My point being, the LXX could never do an adequate job at translating the HOT.

This post was last modified: Fri Mar 21, 2008 07:28 AM by Greektim.

2 Questions:
1) WHat do you think about the dead sea scroll text that agree with the LXX over the Masoretic text?

2) I was under the impression that the 1611 translation included the Apocrypha. Is this not true? (a little off topic on this one)

I still have to disagree with any kind of post-Christian formulation of the LXX. It is so unlikely that the LXX would take only a few sources from the NT and use them for their translation when their are OT quotes back to back in the NT which are in 100% agreement w/ the LXX and the next OT quote is quite different from the LXX.

This post was last modified: Fri Mar 21, 2008 07:41 AM by Greektim.

I gave 6 examples where the LXX and the TR are in perfect 100% agreement in a thread above. That was just a random reading through the NT quotations of the OT. What I found was the TR had more accurate quotations than the UBS (albeit the difference being one letter which a copyist probably added to update the grammar from LXX Greek to Koine Greek).

GT, read the post again - the original 1611 edition of the King James Bible had the apocrypha BETWEEN the Testaments, and the translators stated that it was NOT inspired scripture, but was included strictly for historical purposes.

What difference would it make if the dead sea scrolls went along with the LXX, vice the massoretic?

I think your Bible college professor has done a good job of twisting and perverting truth about our English Bible. I have noticed a very appalling pattern over the past few years - the more a person begins to "dig" into "textual criticism", the further they seem to get away from believing that God inspired and preserved a book that we can hold in our hand, as the pure, authoritative word of God(KJB). 2 Peter 3:16

Let me offer a wonderful expose, that covers this area in detail. The book is entitled, "The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of New Testament Textual Criticism," by Kevin James. Several years ago, Bro James was studying his Bible for a Sunday School lesson, and his wife was doing the same from another "version". He noticed that the two "versions" didn't say the same thing on many similar passages. So, he began his study on the manuscript issue, and this book is his dissertation. It is a very worthwhile book. If you can't locate a copy of it, let me know.

GreekTim said:

Tim, you misread my post. I was not comparing the TR and LXX, I was mentioning that some people say that the KJB translators sometimes used the LXX over the MHOT when determining the reading of some OT verses. I just didn't know where, if any times, that might be evident. It was brought up on another board by one who was trying to poke holes in the doctrine of preservation. (which meant that anything he said was probably wrong )

Secondly, GreekTim said:

I am not a Hebrew/Greek scholar nor the son of a H/G scholar (though my father was a highly respected OT professor and Bible teacher), I am just a simple, English-only, rapidly-aging student of the Scriptures. So does this mean that I can never truly understand the deep meanings of verses lost by translation to the KJB? I trow not!

If your statement is accurate, then there is virtually no one alive today that can claim understanding, because one would have to have such an intimate knowledge of both OT era Hebrew and NT era Greek, that he could communicate as fluently as his own mother tongue. You have referred to your deep interest in Greek in previous posts. Do you feel that you are at that level? Do you find yourself thinking in Biblical Greek instead of English? Do you ever have dreams in Greek? Please don't misunderstand, I am not ridiculing you here. I am pressing a point. You depend on the reference material that you have, some possibly produced by someone who did not even believe in the sacredness of the words being discussed. To many, it is simply an exercise in academics.

God did bring about such an event in 1604-1611 when He providently gathered together those who truly did have the above qualifications. Drawing on the work of those who had gone before, these men, not individually, but collectively, through the divine hand of the Holy Spirit, brought forward the very WORDS of God into a language that made it possible for millions around the world to be able to discern absolutely through the guidance of that same Holy Spirit the deep, hidden jewels spread throughout the Scriptures. Without this possibility, we are at the mercy of a very few (and those few being very likely doubters of preservation) to give us the message within the words upon which our very lives depend.

From both the OT and NT (emphasis mine):

When I sit down to read the Scriptures, I must be able to trust that those very words that are before me are the exact words that God intends for me to read, else I am "of all men most miserable".

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Amen Brother Tim! As I like to say, if there is any inconsistency, any error or any contradiction in my Bible then I may as well sell it on eBay and go out and get drunk.

There are many people around the world who come from backgrounds such as mine. There are also many of these same people who have been saved and discipled through Fundamental Baptist Churches and the RUI program. We MUST depend on the King James Bible as the absolute truth. For so many years of my life and the lives of others like me we had nothing to rely on that was even close to truth. If we went into a Church and faced arguments over whether the King James Bible was actually the preserved Word of God then the Church would be no different than any other program that exists in the world today.

But praise God that He HAS preserved His Holy Word for us in the English language.

In Christ,
George

George, I guess the only ones that would buy an error-filled KJB would be the ones that already buy error-filled "bibles".

GreekTim, I hope you don't get offended by our fervency (and jokes sometimes). Here's part of a post from another board from a pentecostal brother:

Here's part of my response, part tongue-in-cheek and part earnest:

This post was last modified: Sat Mar 22, 2008 01:47 PM by Brother Tim.

You are absolutely right Brother but unfortunately there is a huge market out there for such tainted "bibles."

I have had a number of people say they use the versions other than the King James Bible because the others are easier to read. I ran across an article one time (I wish I could recall where so I could reprint it) where someone did a Flesch-Kincaid reading test on the KJB and the NIV. This test determines the reading level of just about any written entity.

The result was that the King James had a reading level of 5th grade while the NIV came in at 6th grade. Easier to read? The facts do not even bear that out.

It has been mentioned in this thread that the LXX agrees with the TR in certain places. Of course it does but what about the hundreds of places it does not? What about all the verses that the so-called modern versions leave out?

And the Dead Sea scrolls? So what! One of the things that was finally settled for Bible scholars was the Gospel of John. In the Dead Sea scrolls a fragment was discovered that had John 3:16 written on it. This fragment was dated to the First Century AD. Many Bible scholars had stated that the Gospel of John was not a true writing of John and claimed it had been written as late as the 7th Century AD. Since the fragment mentioned was dated in the 1st Century it is quite obvious the Gospel of John was in existence prior to the writing of this fragment because it was concluded it was copied from another writing.


In Christ,
George

George, it is important to point out the the LXX and TR only should be compared when discussing OT passages quoted in the NT. The LXX only contained the OT, the TR only contained the NT. It is only the limited circumstance where an OT passage is quoted, and the argument is made that the original NT writers were reading an LXX and quoting from it, not from the Hebrew OT text. I don't think that there are hundreds of these quotes to begin with, but I have not counted them.

Also, could you give some reference for the part about the John 3:16 verse and the Dead Sea Scrolls? I had not heard that before.

Dr. Waite (http://www.BibleforToday.org) has the information about reading levels. His son did an extensive research on that.

Brother Tim, here is a link to a very good article on the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1cgkO8s...n#PPA66,M1

This is not the one I mentioned in my earlier post. I do not recall if I read it in one of my own books or if it was online. I am searching my books presently and will continue to look for the one I mentioned. This one shows the doubt about the date of the Gospel of John and how the Dead Sea Scrolls provided proof it was not written at any time except for the first century.

In Christ,
George

Here is another link to a site that has an article on the age of the Gospel of John.

http://matthewhoffmanblog.blogspot.com/2...-john.html

I have found these to be very interesting. Again, I will continue to look for the original article I made reference to.

In Christ,
George