Does anyone use the Septuagint?

[Scott Pitta]

Esaias hasa a great point.

Quotes in the NT are interesting to study.

[coksiw]

I have been reading about this topic. I found a table with pretty much all quotes of the OT in the NT. I find that some are very close to the LXX but other are actually closer to MT text, and other are partially in both:

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

I also found out of scholars saying that LXX was quoted by Josephus, and that is a great witness of the existence of LXX before the church. However, I found that contradictory with this:

https://ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-10.htm

But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than translate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there.

If Josephus quoted the LXX, why he needed to say that he translated from the Hebrew as a continuous practice? Is he lying? Are the analysis of modern scholars incorrect? Are scholars assuming their analysis are correct and assuming Josephus is lying? What's going on here?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I have been reading about this topic. I found a table with pretty much all quotes of the OT in the NT. I find that some are very close to the LXX but other are actually closer to MT text, and other are partially in both:

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

I also found out of scholars saying that LXX was quoted by Josephus, and that is a great witness of the existence of LXX before the church. However, I found that contradictory with this:

https://ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-10.htm



If Josephus quoted the LXX, why he needed to say that he translated from the Hebrew as a continuous practice? Is he lying? Are the analysis of modern scholars incorrect? Are scholars assuming their analysis are correct and assuming Josephus is lying? What's going on here?

Josephus has more problems then what he quoted from. The issue is this, the LXX is what is quoted in the New Testament. The Rabbinical Jews argument against the New Testament is that the LXX is used by the NT's authors.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Josephus has more problems then what he quoted from. The issue is this, the LXX is what is quoted in the New Testament. The Rabbinical Jews argument against the New Testament is that the LXX is used by the NT's authors.

Could you please point me to source of that? What I see by inspecting the quotes is truly a mixed bag. It would be nice to have some statistics analysis of agreement of quotes with LXX and MT in the NT.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Could you please point me to source of that? What I see by inspecting the quotes is truly a mixed bag. It would be nice to have some statistics analysis of agreement of quotes with LXX and MT in the NT.

Here have fun.

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Lis...nakh-Bible.htm

https://orthochristian.com/81224.html

Jesus and the Apostles never touch top side or bottom of the Masoretic text. But they read from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek sources which much is no longer with us. My wife and I have studied this for years, and still it i and on going project. Brother Esaias one night made one post that really fueled my studies and that is a journey we are still on. I wish you all the best in your search.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Could you please point me to source of that? What I see by inspecting the quotes is truly a mixed bag. It would be nice to have some statistics analysis of agreement of quotes with LXX and MT in the NT.

I actually found the plain stats here

https://www.deanbibleministries.org/...tesInTheNT.pdf

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I have been reading about this topic. I found a table with pretty much all quotes of the OT in the NT. I find that some are very close to the LXX but other are actually closer to MT text, and other are partially in both:

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

I also found out of scholars saying that LXX was quoted by Josephus, and that is a great witness of the existence of LXX before the church. However, I found that contradictory with this:

https://ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-10.htm



If Josephus quoted the LXX, why he needed to say that he translated from the Hebrew as a continuous practice? Is he lying? Are the analysis of modern scholars incorrect? Are scholars assuming their analysis are correct and assuming Josephus is lying? What's going on here?

Going back to my first post, looking at the stats from my previous post of Hebrew unique quotes in the NT not found in LXX, and the fact that Josephus used Hebrew texts to write his writings, and little hints like Jesus mentioning the Hebrew Bible by referring to events that happened in the first (Genesis) and last book (Chronicles) (the LXX has a different book order) in Matthew 23:35-36, I can come to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible was in fact actively used during Jesus' time in Israel.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Going back to my first post, looking at the stats from my previous post of Hebrew unique quotes in the NT not found in LXX, and the fact that Josephus used Hebrew texts to write his writings, and little hints like Jesus mentioning the Hebrew Bible by referring to events that happened in the first (Genesis) and last book (Chronicles) (the LXX has a different book order) in Matthew 23:35-36, I can come to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible was in fact actively used during Jesus' time in Israel.

What Hebrew Bible did Jesus use? In the document you supplied us shows that the LXX is the lion share of the Old Testament quotes. When you say come to a conclusion re you saying you have completed your research? How long have you been at this?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What Hebrew Bible did Jesus use? In the document you supplied us shows that the LXX is the lion share of the Old Testament quotes. When you say come to a conclusion re you saying you have completed your research? How long have you been at this?

I'm not comparing what is more prevalent in quotes in the NT, but simply that there are evidences of texts unique to the Masoretic Text not found in the LXX.
The article starts like this:

The New Testament writers made approximately 300 Old Testament quotations.1 This use of the
Old Testament has long been an area of scholarly investigation, having implications for biblical inspiration,
translation, and interpretation. A major compilation of these quotations demonstrates the general fidelity of
New Testament writers when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures. Less than 4% of these instances
significantly deviate from both the Hebrew and LXX (Septuagint) and about 77% substantially agree with
the Hebrew.

Of course, the "agree with the Hebrew" part is including agree with both Hebrew and LXX.


Do you think the Jews didn't have Hebrew scriptures? For the clear evidence from Josephus, that study, and the example of Jesus using the book order from the Hebrew scriptures, which the LXX doesn't follow, makes me think they did in fact had some. You don't think so?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not comparing what is more prevalent in quotes in the NT, but simply that there are evidences of texts unique to the Masoretic Text not found in the LXX.
The article starts like this:


Of course, the "agree with the Hebrew" part is including agree with both Hebrew and LXX.


Do you think the Jews didn't have Hebrew scriptures? For the clear evidence from Josephus, that study, and the example of Jesus using the book order from the Hebrew scriptures, which the LXX doesn't follow, makes me think they did in fact had some. You don't think so?

Of course they had Hebrew scriptures, they weren't the Masoretic text.

Have you studied the writings of Josephus? Did you noticed that they are filled with mistakes? For starters it was Josephus who misdated the Quirinius's Census. Yet, scholars doubted Luke, because of Josephus' writings. Josephus is very much debated, as for myself highly doubt much of his writings. There is a paper written in the Journal of ancient Judaism by Professor Michael L. Satlow (Ph.D. in Ancient Judaism from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America) which is very interesting. It is about Josephus' knowledge of scripture. Here is an excerpt,

"Scholars have long debated whether Josephus learned Scripture while he was in Jerusalem or only once he got to Rome. The question intersects with, and is hard to answer without, a more general assessment of language use and the education of the (priestly) elite in Jerusalem at that time. This paper argues that Josephus knew little Hebrew and never learned to read Scripture in the original; he was, in this respect, typical of the Jewish elite. His introduction to written Scripture was in its Greek translation, in Rome."

While scholars continue to make excuses for Josephus, the more I studied his writings, the more I lean towards that he was only a Roman ghost writer.