"The Apostles' Bible"

Theoretical · #1 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007, 04:02 PM

http://www.apostlesbible.com/

It has an English translation of the Septuagint and a Majority Text NT. Any thoughts?

JM · #2 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 10:27 AM

I'd like to see a few pic's of the Bible.

Jerusalem Blade · #3 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 10:52 AM

Scott,

This is how it translates Genesis 2:2:

And God finished on the sixth day His works which He made, and He ceased on the seventh day from all His works which He made.

The Greek Orthodox Bible uses the Septuagint, and a MT NT, and while their NT is generally good, the OT is very poor, as the LXX is not faithful to the Hebrew.

A good book on the history of the Greek Church and their Bible is, Translating The Scriptures Into Modern Greek, by N.M. Vaporis (MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994). Even today the GOC thinks the LXX is superior to the Hebrew (this is what the book examines); it is a language, ethnic & ecclesiastical-superiority thing.

Steve

JOwen · #4 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

The Greek Orthodox Bible uses the Septuagint, and a MT NT, and while their NT is generally good, the OT is very poor, as the LXX is not faithful to the Hebrew.

Steve

The LXX seemed to be good enough for Jesus and Paul, who quoted it extensively.

Jerusalem Blade · #5 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 02:59 PM

Jerrold,

When you say, "The LXX seemed to be good enough for Jesus and Paul, who quoted it extensively", are you implying we should therefore count the obvious errors in the LXX as negligible, or further, hold its readings above the Masoretic text?

The issue of purported NT quotes of the LXX (which is disputed by some) is quite other than an evaluation of its overall reliability.

What actually is it you are asserting?

Steve

Jerusalem Blade · #6 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 04:40 PM

Concerning the Septuagint and Jesus and the apostles allegedly quoting from it rather than the Hebrew Scripture. This is an intricate and nuanced subject, yet rife with misinformation—a veritable “urban legend” right here in our field of Biblical studies!

It is often said that the NT writers, as well as the Lord, quoted the LXX. A thread here on PB, “Psalm 14:3 in LXX” made that statement with respect to Psalm 14:3 and Romans 3:12-18. I append the url to the thread:

Psalm 14:3 in LXX

I respond in post #5 of that thread showing the LXX copied Romans and not the other way around! This common misunderstanding ought to be set straight.

Consider: did the Lord Jesus speak Greek during His ministry? Edersheim remarks concerning the bi-ethnic character of Roman-occupied and somewhat Hellenized Palestine, specifically Jerusalem:

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be ‘targumed’ into the vernacular Aramæan—and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis? (The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim; Mac Donald Publishing, n.d.), pp. 129, 130.

Another point: there are no extant copies of a Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ and the apostles, save one papyrus fragment containing part of Deuteronomy 31:28-32:7, the Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo – 2nd or 1st century B.C. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, by Floyd Nolen Jones; p. 9). The most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek OT are Codices Vaticanus 350 A.D., Sinaiticus 350 A.D., and Alexandrinus 450 A.D. These were likely copied from Origen’s Hexapla (his Old Testament Polyglot – a book that contains the same text in more than one language). The import of this is, the Septuagint “quotes” supposedly found in the NT were actually taken from the NT and put into the LXX.

For those interested in a clear, concise, but detailed study of this I give the url to a complete pdf version of Dr. Floyd Jones’ classic work cited in the previous paragraph:

http://www.floydjones.org/LXX.pdf

And then there are three articles on the same topic by Will Kinney (the links to the second two articles at the end of the first):

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...tuagint_-1.htm

Jones’ book may also be obtained in hard copy from The Bible For Today Ministries:

http://www.biblefortoday.org/search.asp, item #2161. Another book from BFT is Kirk DiVietro’s Did Jesus and the Apostles Quote from the Septuagint (LXX)?, item #2707. This work examines the alleged primary “LXX quotes” in John, Acts, and Hebrews.

I’m Presbyterian/Reformed (passionately so), not a Fundamentalist Baptist, but I have to give credit to these FBs for some of the best scholarship in the field of text criticism. The stereotype that these folks are hillbilly ranting ignoramuses is a lie. Yes, they are my opponents as concerns the doctrines of grace, but that battle is secondary to the one over the Scriptures, where we stand together.

Steve

armourbearer · #7 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 07:24 PM

The opinion of the AV translators is worthy of consideration: "the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

bookslover · #8 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Concerning the Septuagint and Jesus and the apostles allegedly quoting from it rather than the Hebrew Scripture. This is an intricate and nuanced subject, yet rife with misinformation—a veritable “urban legend” right here in our field of Biblical studies!

It is often said that the NT writers, as well as the Lord, quoted the LXX. A thread here on PB, “Psalm 14:3 in LXX” made that statement with respect to Psalm 14:3 and Romans 3:12-18. I append the url to the thread:

Psalm 14:3 in LXX

I respond in post #5 of that thread showing the LXX copied Romans and not the other way around! This common misunderstanding ought to be set straight.

Consider: did the Lord Jesus speak Greek during His ministry? Edersheim remarks concerning the bi-ethnic character of Roman-occupied and somewhat Hellenized Palestine, specifically Jerusalem:

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be ‘targumed’ into the vernacular Aramæan—and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis? ((The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim; Mac Donald Publishing, n.d.), pp. 129, 130.

Another point: there are no extant copies of a Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ and the apostles, save one papyrus fragment containing part of Deuteronomy 31:28-32:7, the Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo – 2nd or 1st century B.C. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, by Floyd Nolen Jones; p. 9). The most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek OT are Codices Vaticanus 350 A.D., Sinaiticus 350 A.D., and Alexandrinus 450 A.D. These were likely copied from Origen’s Hexapla (his Old Testament Polyglot – a book that contains the same text in more than one language). The import of this is, the Septuagint “quotes” supposedly found in the NT were actually taken from the NT and put into the LXX.

For those interested in a clear, concise, but detailed study of this I give the url to a complete pdf version of Dr. Floyd Jones’ classic work cited in the previous paragraph:

http://www.floydjones.org/LXX.pdf

And then there are three articles on the same topic by Will Kinney (the links to the second two articles at the end of the first):

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...tuagint_-1.htm

Jones’ book may also be obtained in hard copy from The Bible For Today Ministries:

http://www.biblefortoday.org/search.asp, item #2161. Another book from BFT is Kirk DiVietro’s Did Jesus and the Apostles Quote from the Septuagint (LXX)?, item #2707. This work examines the alleged primary “LXX quotes” in John, Acts, and Hebrews.

I’m Presbyterian/Reformed (passionately so), not a Fundamentalist Baptist, but I have to give credit to these FBs for some of the best scholarship in the field of text criticism. The stereotype that these folks are hillbilly ranting ignoramuses is a lie. Yes, they are my opponents as concerns the doctrines of grace, but that battle is secondary to the one over the Scriptures, where we stand together.

Steve

So, the bottom line here (or one of them, at least) is that Christian scribes tinkered with the (previously completed) text of the LXX? I was unaware of that. Are there any other places in the LXX that have been tinkered with?

Jerusalem Blade · #9 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 09:10 AM

Richard,

For the sake of space, I hope you will accept a link to one of the Will Kinney articles I noted above: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...uagint_-_2.htm

He brings a number of supposed NT-LXX connections under close scrutiny. He shows how John Owen, in his massive commentary on Hebrews, interacts with the LXX material in particular verses.

For those interested, this is Kinney's site: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html

Steve

Jerusalem Blade · #10 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 09:51 AM

Richard,

Just a brief note here (I have to prepare a number of sermons for an upcoming series, and my time is tight).

You said, "Christian scribes tinkered with the (previously completed) text of the LXX?"

You see, this is perhaps the prime issue. What portions of the LXX were completed when? It is generally agreed there was a translation of the Five Books of Moses, fairly well executed, before the time of Christ, and that this was used by the dispersed Jews in the Greek-speaking world, including Egypt, although not in Israel, where Aramaic was the lingua franca. If you look over the study by Dr. Jones above, you will see the mythological (as in ficticious) quality of the reports of a pre-Christ completed LXX, especially the tale of the 72 elders putting it together with attending miracles.

It does appear to be reliable information that the OT versions in Greek, of which there were many -- and many portions of the OT by various translators -- were "corrected" against the NT quotes.

There is also the matter of the NT writers often not quoting verbatim, but "loosely" as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, sometimes translating so as to interpret in the light of New Covenant truth. Imagine post-apostolic scribes trying to "back-correct" such loose OT quotes!

If you want to do an in-depth (although remarkably brief) study of this phenomena, I highly recommend Dr. Jones' work (in pdf), and then, if you want to look at many particular passages, Dr. DiVietro's book noted in an above post. They are both thin volumes.

Steve

bookslover · #11 (**permalink**) 02-07-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Richard,

Just a brief note here (I have to prepare a number of sermons for an upcoming series, and my time is tight).

You said, "Christian scribes tinkered with the (previously completed) text of the LXX?"

You see, this is perhaps the prime issue. What portions of the LXX were completed when? It is generally agreed there was a translation of the Five Books of Moses, fairly well executed, before the time of Christ, and that this was used by the dispersed Jews in the Greek-speaking world, including Egypt, although not in Israel, where Aramaic was the lingua franca. If you look over the study by Dr. Jones above, you will see the mythological (as in ficticious) quality of the reports of a pre-Christ completed LXX, especially the tale of the 72 elders putting it together with attending miracles.

It does appear to be reliable information that the OT versions in Greek, of which there were many -- and many portions of the OT by various translators -- were "corrected" against the NT quotes.

There is also the matter of the NT writers often not quoting verbatim, but "loosely" as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, sometimes translating so as to interpret in the light of New Covenant truth. Imagine post-apostolic scribes trying to "back-correct" such loose OT quotes!

If you want to do an in-depth (although remarkably brief) study of this phenomena, I highly recommend Dr. Jones' work (in pdf), and then, if you want to look at many particular passages, Dr. DiVietro's book noted in an above post. They are both thin volumes.

Steve

Thanks for the advice and the links. As usual, it turns out to be a more complicated subject than originally thought! Nothing can ever be simple and straightforward in this life, it seems!

Jerusalem Blade · #12 (**permalink**) 02-07-2007, 04:52 AM

Something I would say is "simple and straightforward" is the trustworthiness of the Reformation text of Scripture, the AV. Yes, discerning the hand of God in providentially preserving it -- including bringing certain genuine readings into the hands of the Reformation editors -- can be complex; and to further confound the "wise and learned" -- only apprehended by faith (in His promises, and His word generally). But then the entire revelation of God is apprehended in this manner.

I often find that when studying, and mastering (as much as we are able), the complexities of various subjects, there is a simplicity that arises concerning them in our understanding. The Lord Jesus is the paragon of this: He demolished the finest legal arguments -- and traps! -- of the rabbis and lawyers by the simplicity and profundity of His sayings. May He grant us this sort of wisdom and economy in our speech!

Steve