Michael the Archangel

[Gregory Matthews]

Scholars are in general agreement that the NT writers were aware of the LXX, and often referenced it, when citing the OT.  However, there are differences in use.

*  Soime are exact quotations.

*  Some are in major agreement, but have minor differences with the LXX which are of little importance.

*  There are a few cases in which there is more than a minor difference with the LXX.

The bottom line is:  The NT writers were aware of the LXX and often cited it to some degree.

As to what this means in regard to the inspiration of the Biblical writings, that is a different issue.   In my personal view of inspiration, I do not consider    it to be important as to whether a NT author quotes from the LXX or from another Hebrew MSS.

 

[Kevin H]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:03 AM, Gustave said:

Have you reviewed the 300 plus times the new Testament quotes from the LXX? 

I have a copy of the Stone Edition Tanach which I will quote in a few cases below comparing it with the New Testament. 

Matthew 9, 13: But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The Hebrew doesn't say this but the LXX does. 

Matthew 3,3:  For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The Hebrew doesn't say this but the LXX does.

Luke 3, 5-6 

And I could keep typing these out past the point that would be allowed to fit into the post. I would be interested to see where you are getting that Jesus and the Apostles were not quoting the vast majority of Old Testament Scriptures from the Septuagint? 

Which Hebrew text are you turning to? The Dead Sea Scrolls, which is our most complete copy of what scholars saw as a representative of a family of texts that were used in the land of Israel (thus called the Palestinian family), or are you using the Masoretic Text which is representative of what they call the Babylonian text; the Bible used by those who remained in Babylon. 

And again, even if they were using the Egyptian family of texts, there was still the teaching that 38 of the 39 books that made it into the Protestant Bibles were the actual canonical passages (except for Ecclesiastes which did not make it until the end of the first century. It was understood to be inspired, but that it was a book of warnings of popular false doctrines that the chiastic poem at the end says that the ideas of that book will come under judgment. The rabbis were afraid that the warning would be ignored and that people would quote from that book just like quoting from the other books and thus fall into the false doctrines it was trying to warn against. -- Thus that book did not cover what Paul said to Timothy of the scriptures.) And while the books of the Apocrypha were included not as canon, not a source of doctrine, but as good books never-the-less. 

Anyway, according to the 66 that we consider canonical, there is only the ONE archangel. 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Which Hebrew text are you turning to? The Dead Sea Scrolls, which is our most complete copy of what scholars saw as a representative of a family of texts that were used in the land of Israel (thus called the Palestinian family), or are you using the Masoretic Text which is representative of what they call the Babylonian text; the Bible used by those who remained in Babylon. 

And again, even if they were using the Egyptian family of texts, there was still the teaching that 38 of the 39 books that made it into the Protestant Bibles were the actual canonical passages (except for Ecclesiastes which did not make it until the end of the first century. It was understood to be inspired, but that it was a book of warnings of popular false doctrines that the chiastic poem at the end says that the ideas of that book will come under judgment. The rabbis were afraid that the warning would be ignored and that people would quote from that book just like quoting from the other books and thus fall into the false doctrines it was trying to warn against. -- Thus that book did not cover what Paul said to Timothy of the scriptures.) And while the books of the Apocrypha were included not as canon, not a source of doctrine, but as good books never-the-less. 

Anyway, according to the 66 that we consider canonical, there is only the ONE archangel. 

The Stone Edition Tanach relies on the Masoretic text and what I'm saying is that in nearly every case where the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament the quote lines up with the LXX and NOT with the Masoretic. If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that the Old Testament Quotes found in the New Testament match up as good as they do with the LXX "with the Dead Sea Scrolls" that were written in Hebrew and that proves Hebrew wasn't as dead of a language in the time of Jerusalem as I'm claiming it was - do I have your position stated correctly? 

[Kevin H]

As well as the fact that the Masoretic text came from farther east and the Egyptian textual family was closer in distance to where they used the Palestinian Family of texts. 

Our records come mostly from the Masoretic text, which represents the Babylonian family of texts; and the Egyptian family from which we get the LXX. But these are only two of the three families of texts in Jesus' day. Jesus' Bible was from the Palestinian  family. Paul's Bible was from the Egyptian Family, and our Bible is from the Babylonian family. 

From the study of the evidence scholars say that the Egyptian family included both Hebrew and Greek, and that here may have been a few other Greek versions than the LXX. The Palestinian family had versions in Hebrew and Aramaic. with some other versions besides our most complete collection in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And that even though the Egyptian Family had versions that included the Apocrypha saw then as good and useful books but not scripture.    

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

As well as the fact that the Masoretic text came from farther east and the Egyptian textual family was closer in distance to where they used the Palestinian Family of texts. 

Our records come mostly from the Masoretic text, which represents the Babylonian family of texts; and the Egyptian family from which we get the LXX. But these are only two of the three families of texts in Jesus' day. Jesus' Bible was from the Palestinian  family. Paul's Bible was from the Egyptian Family, and our Bible is from the Babylonian family. 

From the study of the evidence scholars say that the Egyptian family included both Hebrew and Greek, and that here may have been a few other Greek versions than the LXX. The Palestinian family had versions in Hebrew and Aramaic. with some other versions besides our most complete collection in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And that even though the Egyptian Family had versions that included the Apocrypha saw then as good and useful books but not scripture.    

Are you claiming that the Apocrypha wasn't viewed as Scripture by the Apostles and their immediate extension (Apostolic Church)? 

Are you claiming that aside from the readings in the Temple and at Jewish Synagogues the Hebrew language was widely spoken / written and read in and around the area Jesus operated within? 

[Gustave]

Qumran Cave 1 / Hebrew / Isaiah 40, 3

"The voice of one who calls out, “Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God."

 

The KJV

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

 

The Stone Edition Tanach

"A voice  calls out in the wilderness, 'Clear the way of Hashem, make a straight path in the desert, a road for our God"

In this case the New Testament goes with the Greek and not the Hebrew.

 

 

 Hebrew  13, 6 

"Hence we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?”

Vs.

Qumran Cave 4 / Hebrew / Psalm 118,6

"Yahweh is on my side. I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"

Here again the NT quotes the LXX

I'm wondering how many more of these I'm going to find. 

[Gustave]

Kevin has inspired me to lean more about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I've just got the 2nd book on this subject delivered today. So far I'm becoming more convinced that the Apostles, Christ and the early Church considered the Septuagint the inspired Word of God and not the Hebrew version. Isaiah 7, 14 is one glaring example of this. 

The other interesting thing I'm learning about the Essenes was some of their religious views, particularly that they believed in the immortality of the soul but categorically rejected the resurrection of the body???? Has anyone else heard of this? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Modern scholars are learning about the Essenes and their beliefs.  This scholarship may differ some from previous beliefs.

Here is a good source for a brief comment on the Essenes.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene

 

[Kevin H]

Gusave: I don't know about the author, however, this is an example of some of the information about the Apocrypha. We could probably google even better sources but the points here are simple and useful: https://tentmakingchristianity.com/5-reasons-protestants-dont-include-the-apocrypha/

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Gusave: I don't know about the author, however, this is an example of some of the information about the Apocrypha. We could probably google even better sources but the points here are simple and useful: https://tentmakingchristianity.com/5-reasons-protestants-dont-include-the-apocrypha/

I just looked at the 1st three reasons listed at that URL and don't find them convincing, at all. 

#1:  there was no clear list in Judaism as different groups had different Bibles. The Sadducees view of Scripture omitted Books that the Pharisees considered Scripture. The Jewish groups that constituted Judiasm had "Bibles" (plural) not a Bible (singular) and there was disagreement. 

#2: See above. The Priestly class in charge of running the Temple where Jewish worship was conducted believed the Book of Daniel was drivel whereas the Pharisees and common Jew believed both the Book of Daniel as well as the Oral Tradition was binding. 

#3: Holding what you consider to be Scripture to the same standards as, say, the Book of Tobit would invalidate your Scripture - Even Matthew Korpman an SDA Scholar who has done quite a bit of work on the Cannon readily admits this.