Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament

It is many times assumed that the first century Christians used the Septuagint (often referred to as LXX), and that the New Testament writers often quoted from the Septuagint; others claim that the Septuagint, as we know it, did not exist until after Christians had edited earlier Greek manuscripts to produce what we today know as the Septuagint. Thus, some claim that the LXX, in effect, quotes the New Testament writers, not the other way around. Very few quotes of the Old Testament in the NT are “direct quotes,” but are what would today call “indirect quotes.” Likewise, many quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament are not worded exactly as we find them in the Septuagint. At any rate, the evidence that first century Christians used the Septuagint, or that the New Testament writers  quoted from the Septuagint, is not as strong as many assume, and there are many Bible scholars that do not agree with the assumption that the New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint.

http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q10.pdf
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp

Nevertheless, there are some Greek Old Testament manuscript fragments from the first and second centuries BC of what many consider to be earlier versions of the Septuagint, or at least forerunners of the LXX.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1998-September/002015.html.

At any rate, we cannot conclude that the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint. More than likely they did not. It seems probable that often the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament were not “direct” quotes, as we are used to in our modern English, but were indirect, paraphrased quotes or quotes adapted to the context. Thus, we tend to agree with the theory that when Christians later edited the “Septuagint” into what we have today as the “Septuagint”, they often brought these quotes from the New Testament into the Septuagint, which many have assumed to have been quotes from the Septuagint. In other words, more than likely the Septuagint editors simply adopted quotes from the New Testament texts that they had, which would mean that the New Testament writers would not have been quoting the Septuagint, but rather that the Septuagint (as we have it) is quoting the New Testament writers.

Note: We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions by authors on the links provided.

Bible Store:

The Septuagint

Published: 09/12/2009; Updated and republished: 09/13/2014

Catholic Influence on the Textus Receptus -r

Often, the Westcott and Hort text is discredited by many distorations of truth concerning Westcott and Hort. Also added to this is the fact they were Catholic. The claim is that one cannot trust the Westcott and Hort text because of their Catholic influence on the text.

According to the reasoning given, if one were consistent in such reasoning, one should also reject the Masoretic text, since it was preserved that the Jews, and did not Jesus say those Jews: “generation of vipers, how can ye , being evil, speak good things?” (Matthew 12:34, KJV) Jesus even said to them that their father is devil. (John 8:44) Should not, if one is consistent, one also claim that the Masoretic text (and also possibly the Septuagint) are also products of Satan?

Most who reject the Westcott & Hort text claim the Textus Receptus, or at least the King James Version of the Textus Receptus, is without error, etc. Of course, the King James Version New Testament is almost entirely based on the Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, the Textus Receptus itself is highly influenced by the Catholic Church, probably even more so than the Westcott & Hort text. Indeed, we would probably not have any Greek text at all if the Catholic Church had not produced copies of the text. Nevertheless, if one wishes to reject the Westcott & Hort text because Westcott & Hort were allegedly influenced by their Catholic background, the same argument could be presented related the Textus Receptus, and even more so.

God, of course, can make use of anyone whom he wishes in order to preserve the Bible. If he made use of the Jewish Scribes in preserving the Old Testament, surely he could also make use of Catholic scribes in preservation of the New Testament, even though errors may have crept into both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament texts, regardless who were the copyists.

Nevertheless, we believe that God’s Divine Plan of the Ages can be seen to be harmonious regardless as to which text one may use; this extends to the King James Version itself also, as far as the major scriptures that would affect the true Gospel are concerned.

For study pertaining to this, see the following:
(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by these authors):

Desiderius Erasmus (Wikipedia)

Erasmus Was an Orthodox Catholic, Not a Liberal or Quasi-Protestant

How to Choose a Bible Translation

Benefiting From the Ancient Manuscripts

Some Altered Scriptures

Introduction to Use of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Translations (by Laurence Knopf)

Bible Translations

By Laurence Knopf

Originally the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, a language substantially different from the Hebrew of today, the 39 books that make up the Old Testament were completed by approximately 500 BC. By The End of the first century AD, the New Testament had been completed which was written in Greek and preserved on Papyrus. In the early days of Christianity the Hebrew Old Testament was read in a Greek translation, which was called the Septuagint. Parts of the books of Daniel and the Gospel of Matthew may also have originally been written in Aramaic.

As Christianity spread the Bible was soon translated into Coptic, Latin, Arabic and Syriac, by 500 AD translations could be found in over 500 languages.

The Roman Catholic Church banned further translations as they did not want ordinary people reading the Bible. Instead the Church only used Vulgate, a Latin text which had been translated from the Greek version in 600 AD, only priests were educated to understand Latin which gave them power as nobody could question their Biblical teachings.

The first English translations were made by John Wycliffe in 1380 and by 1455 Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press and mass production capabilities made additional English versions and other translations easily available.

There has been an estimate of 450 English translations with some of the most well-known including:

1. The New International Version which is a completely new English translation based upon Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts which were originally published in 1973. This version is the most commonly used as it is more easily understood since being updated in 2011

2. The King James Version, this begun in 1604 by the Church of England and was completed by 1611. However this version is not as commonly used as the New International version because the language is difficult to understand.

3. The New King James Version was published in 1982 and begun in order to upgrade the language of the King James version whilst keepings its poetic literary style.

4. The English Standard Version was originally published in 2001 and was updated in 2007; the translators used a similar translation philosophy as the King James Version.

These versions are usually categorised in the following:

1. Literal translations which translate the original text word for word into the best English equivalent. These types of translations can be difficult to read because the flow of language follows the original Hebrew and Greek, which is very different to modern English.

2. Dynamic translations which translates the original text by restructuring sentences and grammar. These types of translations are intended to capture the thought and intent of what the writer wanted to say, these are therefore easier to read but have a higher degree of subjective interpretation than the literal translations.

3. Contemporary translations which translates by paraphrasing the thought and intent of the original text into contemporary English. These types of translations are easier to read but the text is largely a subjective interpretation of the translator.

Not every word has a direct match into another language so cannot be translated word by word, therefore every translation requires interpretation. In order to translate accurately, it is important that the translator interprets the original meaning and then finds the equivalent wording. All translators should translate into their mother tongue to ensure accuracy. Wordtrans have a wealth of skill and experience in producing quality translations with the understanding that it takes more than just knowing a different language to become a quality translator.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Laurence_Knopf

http://EzineArticles.com/?Bible-Translations&id=8041452

 

 


The information below is provided by the owner of this site, not by the above author.

From the site owner

Mr. Knopf made one statement that we conclude to be probably inaccurate:

In the early days of Christianity the Hebrew Old Testament was read in a Greek translation, which was called the Septuagint.

The general thought that is usually presented is that in the first century, the Jews read the Old Testament in Greek rather than Hebrew, and that Jesus and the apostles used the Greek Septuagint. While it is possible that the Jews may have had some Greek translations of the Old Testament, we highly doubt that those earlier manuscripts are what we today call the Septuagint. Additionally, we also highly doubt that Jesus and the apostles were quoting from the Septuagint. See our study:

Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament

Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek


[AMAZONPRODUCTS asin=”0310417414″ features=”1″]
Canada * United Kingdom
[amazon-element asin=”0310417414″ fields=”desc,CustomerReviews”]


RRD: I have had an earlier edition of this book for many years. It is a great help to those who wish to learn the basics of the Biblical languages, and how to use various helps (Concordances, Lexidons, etc.).

Biblical Numerics

PLEASE NOTE! Provision of links to other sites does not mean endorsement of each and every expression stated in these references, nor endorsement of the total teachings and practices of the individuals or groups that provide the websites.

While investigating rebuttals to Ivan Panin’s numerics, we note that so far in all of the rebuttals the basic heptadic sums of the vocabularies of sentences that appear throughout the Bible is never given any or much attention. These heptadic sums, to us, are the greatest evidence of numerics that the Bible is the divine work of God. Often it is attempted to show that such numerics can be found in other writings. Yet when one examines what is presented in these other writings, the supposed demonstration falls totally and completely short of the heptadic structure of the Bible. In other words, the one endeavoring to discredit Biblical Numerics presents a few lines, and certain “patterns” are given of occurences of words, etc., which is mostly meaningless as far as trying to make a comparison to the heptadic structure of scripture. At least, this is the case in most of what we have examined; these demonstrations are actually psuedo-refutations, for they do not come even close to duplicating the heptadic structure of the Bible.

On the other hand, we have seen over-zealous advocates of Biblical numerics make what appears to be absurd claims regarding numerics. In some cases, the claim is made that the numerics prove the King James Version is the only true translation of the Bible; this is certainly a false claim, for in many places the sums indicate the King James Version to be incorrect. Nevertheless, these over-zealous claims are thought by many to actually represent Biblical Numerics, and thus, by attacking these false claims being made, some have claimed to prove that Biblical Numerics in toto is false.

Nevertheless, we would not be too dogmatic about Biblical numerics as a method of “correcting” Biblical misinterpretations, as Biblical numerics can also be misused — usually misrepresented — to prove all kinds of things. However, the “heptadic structure” of the vocabulary of Biblical sentences is more solid and can offer great evidence of a copyist error, or where pauses should be, etc. It is in reality a tremendous proof that most of the Greek text as we have it is authentic.

We do not believe Panin’s works to be totally flawless, but there is enough evidence there to convince one of the divine numerical structure of the Bible. Our conclusion is that, while Biblical Numerics can be a useful tool, many of the extreme claims should be avoided.

We are not too sure about the “Biblical Codes” theories (which is something different from Ivan Panin’s and Paul Johnson’s Biblical Numerics studies), as we haven’t studied this very much. On the surface, it sounds too fantastic. While Biblical numerics could be referred to as “codes” in the Bible, usually what is referred to as “Bible Codes” is something different from Biblical numerics, and the two should not be confused. Most people do not discern the differences of the supposed other claims of “Bible codes” such as “Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELS)”, and that of the numeric sums of the vocabulary of every sentence in the Bible. The whole matter is so confused together that to the one being presented with all of these “arguments” and counter-arguments for all sorts of numerics and codes, the result for many tends to dismiss all. Believing as we do in that Satan is a real person, we are sure that this is his intent.


Numeric English New Testament

By Ivan Panin

Click Locale for more informaton, recent pricing, and/or to purchase:
USA * Canada * United Kingdom

Related Links

Please note that none of the authors in this section share our belief in the ransom for all. Nor do we necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by these authors.

Bible is Now Proven Valid — Scientifically!
Ivan Panin’s scientific demonstration of the inspiration of the Scriptures
Biblical Numerics Examined Part 2 – Subtitle: The Bible is proven to be Divinely Inspired By Mathematics — Story of Panin and his life’s work.
God Counts
God – The Bible – Numbers
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Their Genuineness Established – by Invan Panin. Second Source
Is God a Mathematician? – a brief summary of Ivan Panin’s life and works
Bible Numerics – a site “mainly dedicated to numbers and patterns within the Bible, but other Bible topics such as science and the Bible also get a mention.”
Overwhelming Mathematical Evidence Of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures From the works of Ivan Panin; Edited by Dr. Keith L. Brooks; Re-Edited by Bernie Koerselman (Booklet can also be downloaded in PDF format.)
Bible Numerics by Jerry Chin – Presents a study of Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 34:6b-7..
The Astonishing Pattern of SEVENS in Genesis 1:1 By Grant R. Jeffery, from his book: The Signature of God
The Writings of Ivan Panin
God is a Mathematician by Keith Newman
Evidence of Design – Beloved Numerologist by Chuck Missler. (We don’t believe Panin would ever claim to be a Numerologist, as the definition of that word usually denotes a form of spiritism.)

Learn to Read New Testament Greek

Learn to Read New Testament Greek

by David Alan Black

Hardback: USA * CANADA * UNITED KINGDOM

Kindle: USA

An academic staple updated for the first time in fifteen years, David Alan Black’s user-friendly introduction to New Testament Greek keeps discussion of grammar as non-technical as possible. The simplified explanations, basic vocabularies, and abundant exercises are designed to prepare the student for subsequent practical courses in exegesis, while the linguistic emphasis lays the groundwork for later courses in grammar. Revisions to this third edition include updated discussions and scholarship, further back matter vocabulary references, and additional appendices.

“A streamlined introductory grammar that will prove popular in the classroom.”

—Murray J. Harris, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Clear charts, clear examples, clear discussion—what more could one want from a beginning grammar!”

—Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary

” . . . combines the strengths of a fairly traditional sequence of topics, in generally manageable chunks with clear explanations fully abreast of modern linguistics.”

—Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

“Pedagogically conceived, linguistically informed, hermeneutically sensitive, biblically focused—unique among beginning grammars. It sets a new standard.”

—Robert Yarbrough, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

One reader states: “For anyone who is tring to learn Greek but is not already a linguistics expert this book is written for you.”

Another reader comments: “This is a ‘must have’ resource for first year Koine Greek students.”

Regarding using the Kindle edition, one states: “The book appears to be written in a straight-forward, easy-to-understand manner. The problem is that it doesn’t work well for use on Kindle.”

One claims: “Black is readable enough to start any layman toward understanding the rich language of the New Testament.”

This book appears to be highly recommended for anyone wishing to learn Koine Greek; it also makes a good Greek reference book for anyone.