[b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity
hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Oct 14 20:55:30 EDT 2006
K Randolph wrote:
> First of all, look at those who wrote the New Testament. Only one
> wrote in really educated Greek literary style, namely Luke.
HH: The Book of Hebrews is also in good, literate
Greek, as are other books. This claim that the NT
is all pedestrian Greek is way overdrawn.
> of Matthew that we have is actually a translation of his original into
HH: This may or may not be true.
More than once Greek scholars have told me that
John is the
> most difficult of the authors to read, because his Greek was so bad.
HH: That's not a necessary conclusion.
> To a large extent, it is Greek words on a Hebrew / Aramaic grammar,
> which makes him the easiest for me to read. Even Paul, even though he
> was well educated and was from a Greek city, most of his education was
> in Hebrew so his use of Greek was middling at best. So the claim that
> the LXX was the basis of their knowledge of Tanakh just does not wash
> with this crowd.
HH: The LXX was not necessarily the basis of their
knowledge of the Tanakh, but they used the LXX
when they wrote the NT.
> Moreover, discoveries among the DSS show that many places where the
> LXX and NT agree are based on Hebrew texts that were extant during NT
> times, that sometimes are not reflected in MT. Secondly I have heard
> the claim that some verses of LXX were "corrected" to be more like
> their citations in NT from other people besides Steven Avery.
> The bottom line is that it is very doubtful that the LXX had any
> meaningful effect on the development of the New Testament.
HH: The bottom line is that the LXX was quite
significant in the composition of the NT.
More information about the b-hebrew