Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

I forgot about those (apocrypha), as I am not familiar with the LXX.

Looking at the history included in the New Testament, it was written
by people who were familiar with Tanakh in Hebrew: Peter employed a
translator (Mark), John wrote in a style that sounded more like
Aramaic with Greek words pasted on top, Paul knew Hebrew well enough
that he could speak it, Matthew originally wrote in "Hebrew" according
to ancient traditions, the only one who really wrote in high Greek was
Luke, and even he came from a synagog to Christianity. At least in the
formation of New Testament Christianity, it looks as if the LXX had
very little influence, if any. It had a lot more influence on later
theology, but not every Christian goes along with that.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 9/24/05, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > I wonder if there are any substantive differences, besides the many minor
> > ones.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
>
> That depends on what you mean by "substantive differences", and which Hebrew
> text you're referring to. If you are comparing the LXX as we now know it
> (and ignoring the slight differences between the different textual
> traditions within the LXX) and the MT as we know it, remember that the LXX
> includes whole books that the MT does not - what we call the Apocrypha. Plus
> the "apocryphal" chapters of Daniel, Esther and Psalms. So that "the Old
> Testament" as known to the early Christians (and to eastern Christians to
> this day) is much larger than the Jewish Tanakh.
>
> Now was this the case during the first and second centuries CE, when
> Christianity was taking form? What did the "Greek Bible" of the time
> include? What did the "Hebrew Bible" of the time include? Unfortunately, we
> have only partial information.
>
> Yigal Levin