Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yonah Mishael <yonahmishael AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity
  • Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:36:09 +0100

On 25/09/2006 14:08, Yonah Mishael wrote:
Another problem is that there are several translations that have come
to be called "Septuagint." We do not know which translation was the
actual LXX of legend. One thing that I find interesting is that in the
27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland /Novum Testamentum Graece/, alongside
each Scripture citation, they insert a symbol to represent when the
author is quoting from the Septuagint. This is found, for example, in
Hebrews 1:5 with hUIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE ("You are my
son, today I have begotten you."). The symbol looks somewhat like
this:

http://www.jhronline.com/work/images/lxx.jpg

As I understand it, this symbol means that the quotation is closer to the LXX than to the Hebrew. But there is still no guarantee that it is identical to what is now known as the LXX. Many of the Old Testament citations in the New Testament are rather different from the LXX; some, but not all, of these are significantly closer to the Hebrew.

...

There are quotations throughout the Greek Testament taken directly
from the Septuagint. ...

Your wording here prejudges the question below! What you mean is, the New Testament text is identical to that of the LXX, but the direction of borrowing is uncertain.

... Is the contention that the LXX was modified to
fit the GT citations by Christians at a later period? Or is the
contention that the GT writings were later than the LXX, which some
have dated in this thread to around 200 of the Common Era?

It is clear that there were Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible books available before the New Testament was written; for example, those found among the DSS. It is also clear that there is a somewhat complex textual history. I would conclude that in general the NT quotes the LXX but there may also be cases where the LXX text as we now know it has been adapted to be closer to an NT citation.

I would agree that the LXX had a great influence in the early
Christian establishment, and I would probably go with Liz in supposing
that if the LXX had not misrepresented some verses of the Jewish Bible
(most notably, of course, the PARQENOS statement in Isaiah 7:14
[though this may be a valid translation, depending on how one views
the semantic range of this noun in the Koine]). It is striking to me,
however, that Paul -- though he quotes so heavily from the Bible --
makes very little use of the LXX in his citations, if any use at all.
He always presents his own translation of the verses that he quotes,
insofar that he does NOT quote from the Septuagint. I find that very
interesting.

I have found other cases in which the NT form of the text appears to be some kind of adaptation of the LXX, omitting parts which differ from the Hebrew. An example of this is Matthew 4:15-16, which mostly follows LXX wording (Isaiah 8:23-9:1 LXX and Hebrew, 9:1-2 English) rather closely but omits both "afterwards he will honour" in the Hebrew and "the others dwelling by the coast" in the LXX.


--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page