Dear Tim,

"....there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

I've provided very detailed and clear answers. As I've stated several times, Hody dealt with all of this especially in his second work on the subject which included a reply to Isaac Vossius.

Philo is obviously quoting the Letter of Aristeas, or maybe vice versa. I pulled out my copy of The Works of Philo to refresh my memory and while his account of festivals is independent, so is his claim of inspiration of the translation whereby each group independently came up with the exact same translation... " every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language." Yonge, The Works of Philo - On the Life of Moses VII (37), p 494. Of course paragraph 40 tells you precisely what Philo is doing, creating a fake Mosaic "antiquity" for Platonic philosophy to support his syncretization. Again, I would point you to Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today, 2005"

Of course, what no one has brought up is cross collating Quitna, Sexta and Septima - the most obvious that very plainly demonstrates the post-Apostolic alterations, is Habakkuk 3:13 in Sexta: "Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of Jesus thy anointed One..."

When you depart from the authentic and legitimate tradition of the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts you are being set up for a fall. That is our confessional standard and that is what I'm sticking with.

And although you'll probably think this last statement is going off onto another subject, which is isn't, but when you then go back farther in the Alexandrian tradition you'll find that a great majority of scholars today agree that the Old Testament is actually Hebrew adaptations of Ugartic literature substituting Yahweh for Baal. And how do you argue with that, these scholars "know" and speak in absolutes that the Ugartic literature, which in many instances is an exact copy of the Psalms and other Old Testament books, represents a tradition that pre-dates the Exodus by a millienia.

If you accept their version then we are all fools, either that, or this process of translating the Old Testament into other languages has been going on for quite some time, with alteration to discredit it. When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, no one denies that their is a Greek Old Testament or even Ugaritic copies of the Psalms - it's the dates that are in question, and who copied from whom. I believe the Greek Old Testament represents a recension adapted to the New Testament and I believe the Phoenicians copied the Old Testament adapted to Baal worship.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

So, if I have this straight, there is no question that Philo lived in Alexandria, that he was born 20 years before Christ and died about 20 years after Christ rose from the dead, and that he writes an independent account of an annual festival in the city in which he lives that celebrates the Septuagint and he may be the source for the Letter of Aristeas. But he is not a source for there being a Septuagint.

Is that right?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Matthew,

I'm looking at that section you mentioned in Owen's first volume on Hebrews, and will comment when finished.


Tim,

You said,

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.

There have been some studies of what exactly changed; I will present some of the findings shortly. It certainly does not qualify as "revision" — spelling and minor changes.

I'll comment also on the Translators' Preface. It'll take me a little while to catch up!

Thanks, Tim. Yes, there are some winners among the Greeks. The Lord sure gave me one after His own heart.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

Hello Tim,

Here is a response to your recent post re Josephus, in which I give a brief summary (by Will Kinney) of a lecture, with some links:

THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS (Summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999) Aristeas
Dr.James R. Davila - Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.

Note: The scholar who wrote this is not a King James Only man, and he accepts the widespread idea that there was some kind of Greek translation of the Old Testament. This makes his research all the more devastating to those who promote the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version. The LXX defenders like to use quotes from people like Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Epiphaneus, Eusebius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr who refer to the Letter of Aristeas as proof of this LXX version, and who themselves further embellished the accounts of this alleged Greek translation.

Kinney's article:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html

In post #74 it was said,

“To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying [i.e., the changes in the LXX from a BC time to AD 200+ would render it a different version entirely –SMR].”


Concerning the differences between editions of the KJV

What immediately follows is from Dr. D.A. Waite, who wrote, among other things, Defending the King James Bible: [from: The Superiority of the King James Version]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1611 KJV AND THE PRESENT KJV

In the New King James Version they have the history of the King James Bible in the back. On page 1229 of my edition, the editors wrote:

"Over the years from 1611 to 1616, words and phrases in the King James Bible were changed, and printing errors were corrected.

"In 1629 the first edition of the Authorized Version, printed by the presses of Cambridge University, underwent a thorough and systematic revision of the text, the italics and the marginal references. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean Bois [he is the one who read the Hebrew Bible when he was five] two of the 1611 translators, participated in that revision. A still further revision, more thorough than the first, was carried out in the Cambridge edition of 1638. This carefully supervised revision covered `from the beginning of the volume to the end.'

"The first Bible to contain dates of biblical events in the margin was a three-volume edition in 1701 ... In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris, a Fellow of trinity College, Cambridge issued a major revision of the King James Bible; and seven years later the Oxford Revision, the work of Dr. Benjamin Blayney was released. ... Marginal notes were increased to almost 65,000, half of which were cross-references."

Basically, those were the revisions up to 1769. The question is, how great were those revisions? How much was the wording changed? That is why I compared the present day Old Scofield King James Version and read the original 1611 and looked not just at the spelling changes. Some say there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, and if you listened to them you would think we don't have anything like the original today. That would be a tremendous number of changes in my judgment. More confusion. They want an excuse to give us a "new" King James Version. That is why they give the history of the changes, to make us think this is JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. If there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, they are related, by and large, to spelling differences, NOT to changes in the meaning or sounds of words.

For instance, take John 9, the account of the man born blind. Now, the word "blind" in verse 1 is spelled "blinde." It's a change. But is "blind" any different from "blinde"? If that is a change you're talking about, it doesn't affect the ear. Now, in the second verse, "sin" is spelled "sinne." That is a change. Then the word "born" is spelled "borne." But the sound is the same. What I did, was to count only the changes that could be HEARD. And from Genesis to Revelation, did I get 30,000? No. Did I get 20,000? No. 1,000? No. I got 421 changes to the ear, that could be heard, out of the 791,328 words. Just 421. That is actually one change out of 1,880 words. As for those 421 changes to the ear--most of them minor, just changes in spelling.

There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for "burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for "lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible).

I note that in his book he elsewhere provides the written research, concerning which I am curious, and will purchase it from his online bookstore at Bible for Today. It is listed as Item #OP1294

I also just pulled F.H.A. Scrivener’s book off the shelf, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), which has much information on this topic, and I will be looking through it to glean what facts I can, the which I will post.

Matthew,

Very interesting read, what Owen thought of the LXX being used for the OT quotes in Hebrews. It may very well be from him that the understanding the LXX was “back-corrected” from the NT originated (and not the IFBs or some supposed “conspiracy theorists”). It is a good example of a highly-trained scholar (both an accomplished Hebraist and Greek expert) refuting the “LXX-quoting NT authors” hypothesis. And he goes into great detail over each supposed instance. These seven volumes on Hebrews are a treasure. I have found no better exposition – for example – on the matter of Melchisedec in Hebrews 7 than his.

That the editor, William H. Goold, sought to contradict Owen (and not only on the LXX “back-corrections”, but on the authorship of the epistle as well) is not surprising seeing as the text-critical company he kept – which he called “the voice of modern criticism” – included such German (or German trained/influenced) rationalists as Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf (p. 117), Mill, Wetstein, and Davidson (p. 102). Sometimes good scholars posthumously fall into the hands of lesser men, who would use the grand vehicle of the former’s excellence to carry their own shabby baggage.

I hope this is not overload for some folks, but I want to give links to some articles on the Septuagint by Will Kinney from his KJV articles page. He's a good scholar (and a Calvinist -- probably Reformed Baptist doctrinally), if a little hard-hitting with some of his textual opponents.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Luke336LXX.html

And this one is a response of his to Dr. James Price's view of the KJV:

Sharper Iron Forums - A KJB response to KJV Onlyism:A New Sect

----------

I'd like to wind down this discussion, if no one minds -- I have so many things to take care of!

Steve

Steve,

Any comments on the AV Translators Preface about the Septuagint that I posted earlier?

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Hi:

The Bible says:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Mt 24:35

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pt 1:24,25.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts, 2 Pt 1:19

The differences between the Critical Text and the Byzantine are so great that they produce two different Bibles. What scares me is the implicit argument of the CT that the Bible did not exist in its pure form until the mid to late 1800's. Such a supposition seems to contradict what Christ and His Apostles taught on the matter.

Any thoughts on this? Pro or Con?

Grace and Peace,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existance of a Septuagint or not.

Tim said:

I never said anything about Josephus. I am trying to get a clear answer to the question of whether Philo is a source for the existence of a Septuagint or not.

Sorry Tim, you’re right!

From the Dr. James R. Davila lecture noted above:

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA (around the turn of the era; _Vita Mosis_ 2.25-44) also tells the story of a translation of the Pentateuch under Philadelphus with an outline very similar to Aristeas (it is quite likely he read the work). The king sends an embassy to Judea to get some translators; he treats them to feasting with witty and virtuous conversation and questioning; the translation takes place on the island of Pharos. But Philo seems to be the first to add that by prophetic inspiration all the translators produced exactly the same Greek text independently. He also tells of an annual festival at Pharos to his day which celebrated the translation. His agenda was to show that the LXX (which Philo used instead of the HB) was just as inspired as the original Hebrew.

It would seem to confirm that Philo had some version of at least parts of the OT in Greek, the general consensus being that he had but the Pentateuch. The only thing we can be sure of was that he knew of the “claims of Aristeas” – and some say it was Philo himself who wrote it. It is certain he embellished the legend, the account of the “prophetic inspiration” of the 72. Is he to be counted as a source for a Christ-contemporary LXX? All we can say is he spoke of the Pentateuch, and, as Davila says, he did have an agenda to promote. What he actually had in his possession we cannot be sure of. Not what I would call a clear source.

Tim,
Do you have any thoughts on Owen and his comments concerning the controversy?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

FWIW, Matthew Poole in his preface to the Synopsis says:

__________________
Andrew

Chris,

Some thoughts (re the portion of the Translators’ Preface, in post #71):

The translators said:

“...it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called...”

The Lord’s providential preservation evidently did not extend to their knowledge of the history of the LXX, as it apparently was not known to them that Aristeas’ letter was not genuine, a matter now widely agreed upon.

...which [LXX] prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

Though it cannot be proven to have existed, nor do we have the text of it if it did, there may well have been a Greek copy of the Pentateuch, and possibly some of the prophets and the writings which were available to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. It is reasonable to assume that the early churches (apostolic, sub-apostolic) had some Old Testament Scriptures in the Greek language.

It has been stated by me above (quoting Dr. DiVietro) that the value of a pre-Christ or Christ-contemporary Septuagint was in its “marrying the vocabulary of Greece to the theology of Israel”, and for today’s use “The pseudo-Septuagint offers the modern Bible student a rich source of semi-Biblical, theological literature. Having this large homogenous yet diverse body of literature, the student can determine with relative accuracy the meaning of words he finds in the Greek New Testament.”

Could the apostles have used a Greek translation to help them quoting the OT while they wrote the NT Scriptures in Greek? While they did not quote it, they may well have considered how the OT Scriptures had been translated from the Hebrew into the Greek.

The original bone of contention between Tim and myself concerned Jesus supposedly quoting the LXX of Isaiah 6:9 & 10 when He spoke as recorded in Matthew 13:14 & 15, simply because the LXX and Matthew agree somewhat in wording, while the Hebrew does not agree so closely. The question I posed – which was treated with undeserved ridicule, and then evaded by irrelevant argumentation – was why would Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew people, when speaking to His disciples (and at other times the priests, Pharisees, and scribes) use Greek, when the primary spoken language of the nation was Aramaic, and the Scriptures of the nation were in Hebrew? Let me re-state what I said earlier, quoting Edersheim:

"If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been 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 that 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 Aramaen – and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?"

From The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim

[Taken from the thread, What language did Jesus & apostles read scriptures]

Might He have spoken Greek when in the Decapolis area, where many Gentiles lived, Gentiles who followed him, and whom He healed and fed? Possibly. What language did He speak to the Syrophenecian woman in (whom Mark in 7:26 tells us was a Greek)? That she addressed Him in Jewish terminology (“Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David...” Matt 15:22) would seem to indicate she was fluent in Aramaic, and knew something of Messianic prophecy. But as DiVietro pointed out concerning the Aramaic:

The Aramaic Talmuds which contained acceptable Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text were considered authoritative commentaries, but not the word of God. The Palestinian Jewish community accepted only the Hebrew Scriptures. This was the community of Jesus and the Apostles.

I realize this may seem to be dancing around the question, but without a historical-grammatical understanding of the setting of Jesus in those days, we cannot hope to piece together with full comprehension what was going on. To say He quoted from the Greek translation to speak to His disciples is without warrant, first, because He had the Hebrew available (and ready in His mind, knowing the Scriptures by heart), and could have translated it into the Aramaic had He wished; second, because Matthew’s Gospel is known to be the Gospel to the Hebrews, that which took the greatest pains to prove the prophecy-fulfilling Messiahship of Jesus, and to show from the Scriptures that He was indeed the One who should come, of whom Moses and the prophets wrote – and Matthew, speaking to the nation of Jewish readers, should be quoting a Greek manuscript? The Translators in their Preface say, “It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction.... Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews”. It is not likely Matthew would do such a thing, quoting an imperfect Greek text when trying to convince the Jewish nation of the credentials of the Son of David. And thirdly, it is without warrant because we simply do not know what any early Greek translation of the Old Testament looked like. The one we have – the Septuagint extant today – came through Origen, around 230-40 AD.

Consider Origen for a moment, from whom we got the LXX, and the precursor of the Vaticanus manuscript; Origen says [translated from the Greek],

…these [the Scriptures] do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, is it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish [from the Latin it is translated: “And who is found so ignorant…”] as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, toward the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[1]

One of the grievous errors of Origen is his constant inclination to interpret Biblical events and stories figuratively, denying the literal histories (as did his intellectual fathers, Clement and Philo). He himself is, in fact, known as the father of the allegorical – or “spiritualizing” – method of interpretation. He is also known to “correct” Scriptures if he thinks the text is unclear or wrong. To wit: in his commentary on Matthew,[2] when dealing with chapter 19, verse 19, he says that the Lord’s words to the rich young ruler, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” cannot be genuine, as the text seems to indicate the Lord concurred with the man’s affirming he kept this command, and thus must have been perfect, while the Lord shows in verse 21 he was not, and what he needed to do to be so. Origen then concludes – because there is a difficulty for him here (but certainly solvable) – this clause was added by some tasteless scribe. Dr. Edward Hills remarks,

In his comment on this passage Origen gives us a specimen of the New Testament criticism which was carried on at Alexandria about 225 A.D….it is clear that this renowned Father was not content to abide by the text which he had received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural emendation. And there were other critics at Alexandria even less restrained than he who deleted many readings of the original New Testament text and thus produced the abbreviated text found in the papyri and in the manuscripts Aleph and B.[3]

In his book, Believing Bible Study (page 47), Hills says,

Among the Christian scribes of Alexandria developments took another turn. According to Streeter (1924), these learned Christians followed the tradition of Alexandrian classical scholarship, which was always to prefer the shortest reading in places in which the manuscripts differed. The Alexandrians were always ready to suspect and reject New Testament readings which seemed to them to present difficulties.

Here Origen talks of Scripture in general:

I do not condemn them (authors of Scripture) if they even sometimes dealt freely with things which to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as to subserve the mystical aims they had in view; so as to speak of a thing which happened in a certain place, as if it had happened in another, or if what took place at a certain time, as if it had taken place at another time, and to introduce into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own. They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood.[4] (Emphases by Wm. Grady)

This is what one might call “a low view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture”! And it does not give confidence that one of the “foremost textual critics and teachers of the early church” dealt honorably (as we who hold the Bible in high esteem would understand “honorably”) with the texts that came his way! Can this be where the change [noted earlier] in Genesis 2:2 originated in the LXX – as though Moses wrote there that on the sixth day God ended His work? Compare with your Bibles translated from the Hebrew!

Burgon comments on Origen’s view of Matthew 19:19:

Now all this is very instructive. Here is the most famous critic of antiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the Gospel, not by the amount of external attestation which it enjoys, but by his own self-evolved fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy, Father, or version is without the clause under discussion. By proposing therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, Origen does but convict himself of rashness and incompetancy.[5]

This is instructive to us in the 21st century as well, for it is upon the very same principles of textual criticism that Westcott and Hort established their Revised Greek Text! Personal fancies instead of careful examination of facts, and accumulation of solid evidence. And it is no coincidence that Origen was a hero and an inspiration to these two men some 16 centuries later.

William Cunningham, in his two-volume Historical Theology, after considering some pros and cons regarding Origen’s contribution to the theology of the church, says,

It is certain, however, that Origen thought that the divine nature was united only with the soul, and not with the body of Christ; so that there was no proper hypostatical union, as it is commonly called,—no proper assumption by Christ of human nature. This groundless fantasy led to his maintenance of what may be regarded as a still more serious and dangerous error, viz., a virtual denial that Christ offered a real atonement for the sins of men. This, of course, overturns the Gospel of our salvation; and it is a melancholy instance of the extent to which an unwarrantable indulgence in mere philosophical speculations may lead men astray from the path of Scriptural truth.[6]

Footnotes

1 Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., (MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), page 365.
2 Origenes Werke, Vol. 10, 1937, pages 385-388; Die Griechischen Schriftsteller, Preussisch. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Cited in Believing Bible Study, pages 47, 48, and The King James Version Defended, pages 144, 145, both books by Edward F. Hills (IA: The Christian Research Press, 1977 and 1984 respectively)
3 The King James Version Defended, Hills, pages 144, 145.
4 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 10, Original Supplement to the American Edition, 5th ed., by Allen Menzies (MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1990), page 383. Cited by William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible, page 94.
5 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Vindicated and Established, by John William Burgon (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), page 274.
6 Historical Theology: A review of the principle doctrinal discussions in the Christian church since the Apostolic Age, Vol. 1, by William Cunningham (Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, reprint edition 1991), pages 155, 156.

------------

Thank you for bearing with this brief excursus (some of which I got from a paper I had previously written), as I wanted to show something of the mind-set of the man through whose instrumentality we got the LXX which exists today.

The Preface Translators say that the “Translation of the Seventy” was used by the Greek Fathers as the ground and foundation of their commentaries, which is not a great recommendation in my view, as I live in a land which bears the bitter fruit of these “Fathers” and their commentaries. The commentaries, those that have spawned the GO religion, are unsound.

And what is the final verdict of the Translators of the King James Bible?

...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. [Emphases added –SMR]

This last portion, “and to deliver the sense thereof, as the spirit gave them utterance,” may well indicate those OT quotations in the New, which are not “exact” as per the way we in this age quote, but the way the Lord Jesus quoted Isaiah 6 in the Matthew passage we have belabored, giving the sense of it, as the Holy Spirit gave Him utterance, and Paul in Hebrews, Luke in Acts, John in his Gospel, in the same manner, sometimes giving exact quotes, and sometimes not. The copycat Septuagint of Origen and Vaticanus has its value, but not as inspired Scripture, which the Lord and His men quoted from. Whatever Greek Old Testament may have existed in Jesus’ age and before, we can only surmise concerning.

From Dr. Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (p. 121); he says,

Chris, I hope this is an adequate response.

Steve

Thomas, Philo lived in the city where the Septuagint was translated. He was there at the time of Christ. People read the book that he wrote. Nobody to my knowledge except you and Steve don't count him as a source. Steve says it seems to him he can't be trusted.

What do you think? Is Philo a source for their being a Septuagint?

Sorry, I haven't read Owen yet on the subject.

I never said that Christ spoke in Greek. I said He quoted the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew. I clearly implied He quoted the Greek text rather than the Hebrew text exclusively. Just like when He quoted the Hebrew text He often used another language than Hebrew, namely Aramaic, which isn't a dialect of Hebrew.

?? If He quoted the Septuagint then by definition He spoke in Greek.

Are you saying that Jesus quoted the Septuagint by translating it into the Hebrew? Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

That is such an obvious thing I have never even thought of for some reason.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

We need to be clear on the status quaestionis in order to avoid talking past each other. It does not appear to me to be relevant whether the Septuagint existed in part or in whole prior to or at the writing of the NT. The real question is whether the NT shows a dependence on the Septuagint.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

How can the NT 'show' a dependence on something that no longer exists?

It all sounds like conjecture to me.

"No longer exists?"

Dear Tim,

Based upon Philo's written account I don't think it is reliable, so I don't think he is a credible witness. This is one reason why, but I don't have time to get as involved as Elder Rafalsky is into this, so I'll just outline this brief reason:

This is what Philo says:

Ptolemy, surnamed Philadephus, was the third in success after Alexander...and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person. And having explained his wishes, and having requested him to pick him out a number of men, of perfect fitness for the task, who should translate the law, the high-priest, as was natural, being greatly pleased, and thinking that the king had only felt the inclination to undertake a work of such character from having been influenced by the providence of God, considered, and with great care selected the most respectable of the Hebrews whom he had about him, who in addition to their knowledge of their national scriptures, had also been well instructed in Grecian literature, and cheerfully sent them." Yonge, The Works of Philo - On the Life of Moses, II V (28) - VI (31), 1993

Philo claims it was done in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus who reigned in Egypt from 281 to 246 BC. But then his account of the High Priest in Jerusalem is also King..."for they were the same person." It was only after the Maccabean revolt, in the Hasmonean period, that the office of High Priest was united with the King, this is from 166 to 163 BC. In his own account he has more than a century of time gapping between them.

Based upon the rules of evidence, Philo's testimony is prima facie unreliable as to their being a "Septuagint."

It appears to be designed in order with the Letter of Aristeas but then switches gears to make it a divinely sanctioned translation in which he establishes..."these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses." II, VII (40)

This, then, connects his account of the translation with his account of Moses as filling both offices "though the providence of God" of High Priest and King as well as Lawgiver and Prophet, or a fourfold office whereby..."the connection of these four powers is beautiful and harmonious, for being all connected together and united one to another, they unite in concert, receiving and imparting a reciprocity of benefits from and to one another, imitating the virgin graces with whom it is an immutable law of their nature that they cannot be disunited..." II, I (6)

Hence, he is connecting together not only divine providence for this supposed translation but divine Authority for it insomuch that it would supplant the Hebrew, as he says: "...they would admire and reverence them both as sisters (e.g., Hebrew and Greek translation), or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language..." II, VII (40)


Cordially,


Thomas

This is one of the things you don't get, Ken. And that's the reason I'm still in this thread. People who haven't a specific knowledge of this subject can get into really bizarre thinking by listening to what is being said, especially by Steve.

Look, Ken. I tried to make this point earlier, and I'm disappointed none of those who are familiar with the basics of Biblical language have stepped in. Christ didn't speak to the masses in Hebrew. He spoke mostly in Aramaic. When Steve calls Aramaic, or Palestinian Aramaic a "dialect of Hebrew" he is passing on misinformation. Aramaic is a different language than Hebrew.

There is not one person on this board with an advanced theology or relevant language degree who things Christ typically quoted Hebrew OT Scriptures when he was speaking to the masses. So what happens to your question then? You ask

And the answer is they didn't speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic. Read this from Isaiah 36
Palestinian Aramaic had many Hebrew words etc.. just like Yiddish has many Hebrew words. The Jews in eastern Europe in the last century spoke Yiddish, which is a dialect of German. Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ.

Edit: Steve quoted Edersheim calling Palestinian Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew, it was not a claim he made himself.

So then the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source, is it.

Philo is also a source, but after studying the material in depth, you don't think the man was credible. You think that the rules of logic dictate that because he may have made a mistake deliberate or otherwise about the history of the Septuagint, specifically about something that happened 250 years before he was born, cancels the fact that he was a witness to a celebration to the Septuagint in his own day.

So, as we have it at this point, you concede that the letter of Aristeas isn't the only source. There are two sources, both in your opinion not credible, Philo and Aristeas.

Now my next question is: are there any other sources besides these two, even sources you don't like?

BTW Steve, you may want to consider NOT using Edersheim when making your point about the lack of proof for the historical Septuagint. On a hunch, since you brought him up several times, I got my copy out of The Life and Times and he says we have to, based on the evidence, say that the Septuagint was completed during the reign of Ptolemy 111, who ruled between 247-221 BC.

He calls the Septuagint the "People's Bible" of the time of Christ.

Tim said the LXX was constantly 'improved' and 'revised' so how do we know for sure what the LXX looked like at the time of Christ? If we don't know what it looked like, how do we 'show' that the NT writers depended upon it?

Tim,

I don't think there are two sources or witnesses in Philo and Aristeas. Fraudulent documents are not sources or witnesses, nor is Alexandria a proper repository for the Scriptures. Romans 3:1-2 is clear. Further, it has been a few years since I went through this subject for myself, but it was not logic that I analyzed it through but rather Greenleaf's Rules of Evidence for Ancient Documents.

I've provided answers to your questions, yet repeatedly you never deal with one fact presented. You admit you've never studied John Owen, you didn't know who Edward Leigh was, I doubt you've read Francis Turretin either. I believe you said you had never heard anyone that ever doubted this, yet both Elder Rafalsky and I have provided you Reformed Protestant witnesses that go back hundreds of years from which we derive our position.

I'm happy to discourse with you and attempt to explain my position, but I can't argue into a void. You chide us and utilize various forms of disparagement, imply that Pastor Ken is ignorant on this subject, yet admit you haven't studied it thoroughly.

The problem is that with this lack of understanding regarding the polemic with Rome over the Providential Preservation of Scripture and how the doctrine came to be Confessionally established in the Westminster Confession of Faith you can't understand what is at stake.

At common law when you bring a witness forward you have to be able to vouch for his veracity as a witness. The veracity of both the Letter of Aristeas and Philo have been destroyed in this thread, I guess we could go on into Aristobolus and other's but I don't see the point, because you haven't dealt with anything so far.

If you have something of substance to add, then please do - or at least deal with the evidence that has been publicly posted.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas2007, please deal with TimV's arguments without calling into question his intentions in entering into this discussion.

Scholars to and fro here, but at a bare mimimum it is accepted that the Septuagint shares a large vocabulary with the NT, and make use of it in examining NT words.

From post #104:

Tim:

I’d like to look at this, and review what I have actually been saying, to see if it fits the “bizarre” bill you allege. But first, this exchange, where KMK questions why Jesus would not have used the Hebrew to quote from:

KMK: “Why would He do that when He essentially wrote the Hebrew? Why not quote from His own writings”

Tim: “And the answer is they didn't speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic. Read this from Isaiah 36:11:

Quote:

Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.’

Palestinian Aramaic had many Hebrew words etc.. just like Yiddish has many Hebrew words. The Jews in eastern Europe in the last century spoke Yiddish, which is a dialect of German. Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ.”

Tim, you err here. The reason Eliakim & co. asked Rabshakeh to speak in “the Syrian language” (Aramaic) and not in “the language of the Jews” (Hebrew), was not that the “men on the wall” didn’t understand Hebrew, but rather that they did, which Rabshakeh sought to capitalize on when he disparaged Hezekiah and hoped to terrify the soldiers and all listening with the promise of their coming doom. Eliakin wanted to spare the men from hearing such things in their own language – the Hebrew.

------

Yes, Edersheim is not one I would choose to support my view of the Septuagint, as he would be a witness on your side. But he was pertinent about the use of Greek to the rulers of Israel in the quote I used. The which I would like to look at some more.

Tim, you said,

There is not one person on this board with an advanced theology or relevant language degree who thinks Christ typically quoted Hebrew OT Scriptures when he was speaking to the masses.

Let’s look at this. Two points I would like to make: 1) Often Jesus spoke to the rulers, priests, and Pharisees in the presence and hearing of the masses. It was from fear of the masses that the Pharisees and priests refrained from seizing Him on a number of occasions. Now when the Lord was disputing with the rulers, He must needs have done this in the Hebrew language, particularly when quoting the Scripture. Jesus was a hero in the eyes of the common people, for He dared to withstand the corrupt temple priests, and often rebuked the contemptuous Pharisees in their hearing, using Scripture. Seeing as only the Hebrew Scriptures were acknowledged as authoritative in Jerusalem and Judea, the burden of proof is on you if you allege He used the Greek (even in a running translation) in these exchanges. Many are the claims made in a court of law, but only those with substantial evidence win the day.

2) The claim that Palestinian Jewry in the time of Christ could not speak Hebrew has been seriously challenged. I quote from Thomas Holland’s, Crowned With Glory, chapter 6, “Oracle of the Jews”:

For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and secular) were written in Hebrew.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.* This confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Christ. Jesus proclaimed; “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). It is interesting that Christ used the words jot and tittle which are Hebrew letters, not Greek. Additionally, Jesus states in Luke 11:51; “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zecharias,” attesting to the Hebrew order of Scripture. The placement of Old Testament books are different in the Jewish order, ending with 2 Chronicles and not Malachi. In 2 Chronicles 24:21 we are told of the stoning of faithful Zechariah, and Christ’s statement not only spoke of the martyrdom of Old Testament saints, but marks the limit of the Hebrew order: from the beginning (Genesis) to the end (2 Chronicles). (pp. 111, 112)

* Alan Millard, Discoveries from the Time of Jesus, (Oxford: Lion, 1990), 35.

-------

Now what is the “bizarre thinking” you allege I inculcate? Let me count the ways.

I uphold the Traditional Text, and in particular the Textus Receptus Greek and Masoretic Hebrew.

I appreciate the scholarship of some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists as regards the Textual histories of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, as well as Presbyterians, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed Baptists, and others. In this area I have found the IFBs outstanding.

I have posted views concerning the Septuagint which range from those who say there is no evidence whatever for the existence of a pre-Christ or Christ-contemporary Septuagint, to those who say there were Old Testament portions, particularly the Pentateuch, but they are not to be confused with – or identified as – the text known today at the Septuagint.

The term “Septuagint” means that Greek translation by “the Seventy” of legend (for there is no historical basis to assert their actual existence or the LXX allegedly produced by them). So, technically, when one says there was no Septuagint or LXX before the time of Christ, this is accurate. Now, if one were to say, there were Scriptures translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, for there is some little attestation for that, that could be accepted. But to call them the Septuagint is a misnomer.

I have asserted that Christ did not use the Greek translation when He quoted Scripture, but rather used the Hebrew. In particular I denied his using the LXX’s version of Isaiah 6 when he quoted from Isaiah in Matthew 13:14, 15.

I have stated, in the company of others, including John Owen, that the exact reproductions of NT phrases found in the LXX were replicated in this latter by “Christian” (or Christian era) scribes, and were not taken from the LXX and put into the NT – rather the reverse.

I have said that Jesus did not speak Greek (or use a Greek translation) when quoting Scripture to His countrymen and women.

Are any of these things properly called “bizarre” – or as you earlier typed my style (post #41) “rhetorical games”? I do not think this would pass as civil discourse even in the secular realm of discussion.

No doubt some of my view are controversial, but then the Presbyterian and Reformed soteriology is controversial in the larger Christian camp. We cannot avoid controversy if we take a stand for particular views. What we can avoid, however, is a contemptuous, defaming tongue, for we then belie the Spirit of grace who lives within us, and is our life.

Here on PB many doctrinal positions are represented – and some quite opposed to one another, such as the paedo-credo – and yet we seek to adorn the Gospel we say we live by with mild and respectful spirits. Yes, we may argue our points vigorously, but all who are born from above shall be our fellows in an untold wondrous eternity of friendship in the presence of our King, and we are told to begin that life of love here, and now.

So please, ease up a little. I may be wrong in some things I say, and if I cannot be corrected of such in this life, then the Lord will correct me when I stand before Him – along with all others who presume to teach (James 3:1) – on that great Day of Reckoning. For now, we are to help one another as we all traverse this wicked world (with wicked hearts of our own!) on our way to the Land of Glory.

Let's end this significant discussion graciously, cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. Thanks for your stimulating opposition. I have been bettered by it, and have seen some areas where I need further study.

Steve

No, Steve, I do not err. You are not following the argument. Both Ken and Backwoods thought that it was obvious that Christ spoke to the masses in Hebrew, and the whole point of the quote was to show that Aramaic was not and is not a dialect of Hebrew. I believe at least Ken got it. The overwhelming opinion of both religious and secular thought has always been that Christ generally did not address crowds in Hebrew, so He in the very nature of things translated the Scriptures into the language of the audience, as do we today whenever we post Scripture in English.

Tim,

I understand this: you said of the people on the wall,

"Those Jews didn't understand Hebrew any more than the average Jew understood Hebrew during the time of Christ."

But they did understand it. And what of the findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls that show the Palestinian Jews of Christ's time did know far more Hebrew than had previously been thought?

The use of Aramaic is another issue; the primary issue was concerning the Greek.

I stand by my saying Jesus did not use the Greek Old Testament when quoting Isaiah 6 in Matthew 13, but quoted it loosely from the Hebrew as the Spirit of God led Him.

I will let those reading our exchanges determine for themselves whose presentation of historical and textual data is most credible.

Agreed. I think this one's about outlived its useful lifespan and it went off topic a long time ago.