Only Hebrew Old Testament Preserved by God?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I believe I have seen you mention the value of the LXX several times on this forum. Since, as you note, the NT quotes from the LXX, do you think it is the authoritative OT we should use? I guess I am inclined to think so because, well, the NT writers (usually?) quote it. (I'm not sure the exact break down of how the NT quotes the OT and whether there are examples where the NT quotes of the OT agree with Hebrew against the LXX.)

When you make comparison between the Hebrew against the LXX, what Hebrew are you referring to?

[Esaias]

The NT writers quote the LXX about 85% as opposed to a text that follows the Masoretic text. The rest of the time, they either quote a text that agrees with the Masoretic, or they quote a text that agrees with neither Greek or Hebrew (known) texts.

I posted the breakdown on the forum some time years ago, can't remember exactly where though.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The NT writers quote the LXX about 85% as opposed to a text that follows the Masoretic text. The rest of the time, they either quote a text that agrees with the Masoretic, or they quote a text that agrees with neither Greek or Hebrew (known) texts.

I posted the breakdown on the forum some time years ago, can't remember exactly where though.

Please find that and repost it

[Esaias]

Interesting overview, although too much reliance on Vaticanus and NET: http://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/List...nakh-Bible.htm

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Interesting overview, although too much reliance on Vaticanus and NET: http://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/List...nakh-Bible.htm

Yes.

I think you posted the other one in the Anti-Matthew 28:19 thread.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I use to leave the LXX to history and accept the Sinaticus for what it was. But since Esaias enlightened me to the Alexandrus Codex. I began to look closer at the Hebrew, Greek, and the earliest translations in Latin of the OT. What I found is that the Sinaticus which is what we have today isn’t what Jesus and Paul used. As well as the Masoretic text from 600 AD. The problem is this, if they weren’t quoting the LXX and that is what we have recorded in our NTs, then the problem is immense. But a careful investigation into the history of the Greek Judean world shows that the LXX was the Bible of the Diaspora.

Thanks for the info. If the apostles (mostly/always) used the LXX, do you know why and when it fell out of favor with Christians? Regarding the Latin, if I recall correctly, Jerome learned Hebrew and translated from Hebrews for his Vulgate OT; whereas, older Latin versions were based on the LXX. Is that correct?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

When you make comparison between the Hebrew against the LXX, what Hebrew are you referring to?

I guess I would be thinking of the Hebrew our translations are based on, so the Masoretic text.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The NT writers quote the LXX about 85% as opposed to a text that follows the Masoretic text. The rest of the time, they either quote a text that agrees with the Masoretic, or they quote a text that agrees with neither Greek or Hebrew (known) texts.

I posted the breakdown on the forum some time years ago, can't remember exactly where though.

Very interesting. Thank you for the info. I asked EB about the following, but I would appreciate your input as well: Since the apostles used the LXX why didn't it remain the OT for Christians? When did it fall out of favor, and why?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Brother the trivial translatable differences he was referring to is from my posts: the different between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. The NIV is based on the Critical Text, not the Majority Text. The CT does have significant differences with the MT and the TR, even doctrinal, like John 1:18.

Here is the list of the translatable differences between the MT and the TR: http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html

Thanks for the reply, but regarding the NIV being based on the CT, yes I agree; however, in the examples I give, the CT and MT have the same reading, which is different from the TR's. I use the NKJV, and I saw this in the textual info included in the NKJV's notes. (I am aware that the MT and TR are generally the same, which it why these examples stood out to me.)

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Regarding how Paul used the LXX: In I Corinthians 2, for example, Paul quoted directly from the LXX in verse 16 (Isaiah 40:13) but used another translation or paraphrase, perhaps his own, in verse 9 (Isaiah 64:4). His letters contain about one hundred OT quotations. About half are from the LXX, four are direct translations of the standard Hebrew text where it clearly differs from the LXX, and the rest are similar but not identical to the LXX. (See Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 96.)

In summary: translations are not inspired, but very useful and for practical purposes the Word of God for us; however, at times, you will still need to go to the original language as Paul did.

Thanks for the resource.

Do you think that later Jews changed the Hebrew in some places to not be as helpful to Christian interpretations and claims that certain texts referred to Jesus?