Why I Don't Believe in The Septuagint

[SteveF]

Interesting talk by Peter J Williams on what we refer to as the Septuagint.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmA2oQmr4wQ

[Michelle]

Interesting talk by Peter J Williams on what we refer to as the Septuagint.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmA2oQmr4wQ

Wow, that was interesting (and long.) Do you know if anyone spoke at that conference with an opposing viewpoint?

[Paidion]

I didn't take the time to listen to the talk.

But the apostles and other writers of the New Testament obviously believed in the Septuagint. ALL of their quotes of the Old Testament were taken from the Septuagint. It seems that the Septuagint was the only Bible they had.

[dizerner]

I'll save anyone one hour from wading through this video and distill it down to a 30-60 second read:

The video title is misleading. This guy is not saying the LXX is bad, just misunderstood. He's just saying a simplistic label gives a layman a wrong understanding of the manuscript evidence we actually have. And he's right. There is no "opposing" view.

There is no "alternative" few to the fact the LXX consists of a bunch of Greek manuscripts over a span of many years that differ with each other and all display different linguistical attributes. So one should never take the claim "Well, the LXX is better cause Jesus and the Apostles used it," Ba Dum Tss! Overly simplistic, and on the line of a King James Onlyist, who then has to pick one of the many variations of King James Translations that exists. There is no one "LXX" in isolation no more than a single KJV. And he says, "No one in the NT would have understood the Septuagint in the modern sense." Well duh... that should be a no-brainer . LXX is just a loose term evolved over time.

I don't agree with his solution of not using the term "Septuagint" anymore, people just need to stop being lazy and study what manuscript evidence actually is. Septuagint has come to mean a synonym for "Old Greek books associated with the Hebrew religion," and that's fine. People will always continue to jump to the conclusion of being simplistic about things and thinking the LXX is some single bound book in competition with the MT or something.

Video speculates on how did the LXX canon evolve and what did it originally include. Just hearing "Greek OT" people might assume there is one official accepted canon and book bound together, instead of a long history of disparate Greek books over time forming an entire manuscript family, lineage and tradition, just like every NT & OT book has. There is no "LXX" per se, just a bunch of OT and Apocryphal books translated into Greek over a period of many years with a vague tradition back to some event where the Jewish Torah (Pentateuch, first five books) was officially translated. All bundled under "LXX" today and that's why you can buy a critical edition with main variants and with many Apocryphal books.

Many of the "LXX" books display a different range of vocabulary and complexity of grammar and various other signs of differing authorship, some of which were even originally authored in Greek with no translation. Over time some seem corrected to agree more with the Hebrew, and some try making really literal translations. He then makes the crazy radical speculation that the NT authors would want to get a Greek text closer to the Hebrew (sarcasm), just as some people are speculating they'd prefer the Greek over the Hebrew (other than the fact they simply can't read Hebrew? lol ok). Some explanations of OT quotes in the NT are that they are exegetical compilations of varios authors then sometimes attributed to the main prophet, or that sometimes a word is used with the force of two meanings (both of these are obviously true). There obviously are some OT quotes that include a Greek mistranslation, and the NT seems okay with that.

Check out our previous thread with some good thoughts here:

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=5109

[Paidion]

Thank you Dizerner for your precis of the talk!

Actually, we do have a single, bound Septuagint in our day. And the New Testament writers in their quotes of the Old Testament better matches the modern Septuagint than it does the Masoretic text.

I don't think the LXX can be dimissed on the grounds that there have been changes in it over the years. Indeed, the Masoretic text has also changed over the years.

The fact remains that the quotes of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers better matches the modern Septuagint text than it does the Masoretic text. There are over 90 examples of this. I will illustrate by examining with you just two:

EXAMPLE 1
Matthew quoting Isaiah 40:3
The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.” (Matt 3:3 NKJV)

Isaiah 40:3 translated from the modern version of the Greek Septuagint
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.” (A translation of the LXX)

Isaiah 40:3 in the NKJV, a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text
The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3 NKJV)

Which best matches Matthew's quote? The translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text, or the translation of the modern version of the Septuagint?

We can also compare the Greek of Matt 3:3 with that of the Septuagint in Isaiah 40:3

The Greek of the quote in Matt 3:3
φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον κυριου ευθειας ποιειτε τας τριβους αυτου

The Greek of Isaiah 40:3 in the modern Septuagint
φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον κυριου ευθειας ποιειτε τας τριβους του θεου ημων

Notice that the Greek Matthew used in translating is identical to the Greek of the modern Septuagint except that Matthew wrote "αυτου" (of him) at the end, while the Septuagint has “του θεου ημων” (of our God)

EXAMPLE 2
Rom 2:24 quoted from Isaiah 52:5
“The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Modern Septuagint taken from Isaiah 52:5
Because of you my name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

NKJV translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text taken from Isaiah 54:5
And My name is blasphemed continually every day.

Again, we may ask, which of the two better match Paul's quote of Isaiah 53:5? The modern LXX text or the Masoretic Hebrew text?

Now let's compare the Greek of Rom 2:24 with that of Isaiah 52:5 from the modern Septuagint text:

Rom 2:24
το γαρ ονομα του θεου δι υμας βλασφημειται εν τοις εθνεσιν

Isaiah 52:5
δι υμας δια παντος το ονομα μου βλασφημειται εν τοις εθνεσιν

What are the differences in Greek of Rom 2:24 and the Greek of Isaiah 52:5
1 We find “δι υμας” (because of you) in about the middle of Rom 2:24, but at the beginning of the Isaiah 52:5.
2 We find “ ονομα του θεου” (God's name) in Rom 2:24 but “ονομα μου” (my name) in Isaiah 52:5.
Otherwise the Greek is identical. Paul may have been quoting from memory, so that would account for these minor differences.

I think that almost every variation between the OT quotes in the NT and the Septuagint translation of the OT passages from which the quotes were taken, is minor and insignificant. But there is usually a much greater diffence between the NT quotes and their source as written in the Masoretic text, and sometimes those differences are significant.

I think it is also significant that the Hebrew of cave 4 at Qumran more closely matches the Septuagint than it does the Masoretic text.

[dizerner]

Actually, we do have a single, bound Septuagint in our day. And the New Testament writers in their quotes of the Old Testament better matches the modern Septuagint than it does the Masoretic text.

I don't think the LXX can be dimissed on the grounds that there have been changes in it over the years. Indeed, the Masoretic text has also changed over the years.

There is no "LXX." There are hundreds of separate Greek manuscripts that differ from one another. That's this guy's whole point is that people are ignorant about manuscripts and use a dumbed down term "Septuagint." If you're going to be technical, the Septuagint can only be the first five books of Moses, translated in Alexandria by 72 scribes at one time, whom all came out with the exact same translation independently (so the legend says). Nothing else can be the "LXX," not Isaiah or Jeremiah or the prophets or the Apocrypha.

That's why people can make critical editions of the Septuagint like here: http://www.amazon.com/Septuaginta-Greek ... 1598561804.

[dizerner]

The fact remains that the quotes of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers better matches the modern Septuagint text than it does the Masoretic text. There are over 90 examples of this.

That's because they spoke and read Greek. Can you give me every example of an OT quote in the NT that doesn't match any known Greek manuscript? You can't play just one side.

According to one website "Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint." However some cases are not completely clear, and seem to read a somewhat from both the Hebrew and the Greek or even a different vorlage (original text) altogether. Consider for example:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

This seems to partly match the Greek (recovery of sight to the blind) and partly the Hebrew (to set at liberty them that are bruised). But matters get even more complicated! The Alexandrian text stream, which includes two the earliest complete LXXs, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, leaves out "to heal the broken in heart," which is found in the LXX. Now why, if the LXX was the direct source, would a phrase be left out? But also this quotation may be combining Isaiah 42 with 61—it was common practice to combine many OT passages into one.

In conclusion many quotations have a complicated and complex history, that may even trace back to text before the LXX or the Majority, and many Dead Sea Scrolls bear that out as well. The LXX is one valuable witness among many, and should never be assumed to "trump" all others.

[dizerner]

just a sample

Matt 2.15/ Hosea 11.1
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Septuagint
out of Egypt have I called his children.

Matt 11.10/ Malachi 3.1
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee."
Septuagint
Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me.

John 19.37/ Zech. 12.10
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."
Septuagint
They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me.

Rom 9.33/ Isaiah 8.14
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"a stumbling stone and a rock of offense"
Septuagint
a stumbling stone, neither against the falling of a rock

Rom 11.35/ Job 41.11
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid."
Septuagint
or who will resist me, and abide

1 Cor 3.19/ Job 5.13
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"He catches the wise in their craftiness"
Septuagint
who takes the wise in their wisdom

[dizerner]

Actually, we do have a single, bound Septuagint in our day.

Might I inquire the date and name of this manuscript you are referring to, just out of curiosity.

Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

These are well over 700 hundred years after any original LXX was written down.

[Paidion]

Might I inquire the date and name of this manuscript you are referring to, just out of curiosity.

Here is an example of a modern Septuagint:

https://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Notice that on the very first page reference is made to THE Greek Old Testament.
When scholars refer to THE Septuagint, they surely have some particular object in mind.

Thank you for the samples you offered of New Testament quotes comparing them with the Septuagint ( or some Septuagint). I will examine them at the first opportunity.