Great focus on the relevance of the possibly-real Septuagint. I hear you saying the the authority of any translation depends on the original text. Few refer to the OT Hebrew texts as corrupted. So, it follows, many would have to address whether or not the Septuagint texts are are accurate or not. I observe the more poignant question many in Christendom have is: "If Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles all periphrastically eluded to any translation of the OT (i.e. the Septuagint texts), what does that say about the validity, accuracy, and authority of those texts?" Also, "What does a writer of Scripture (and, even Jesus) believe about the inspiration and accuracy of the Hebrew text if they do not quote it in precise fashion, incorporating elements of translations?" Maybe I'm complicating this, but when I start with what I read/see in Scripture; this is where I struggle when conversing with others about the Traditional Text and translations with others who do not believe in the the providential preservation of Scripture.
I think the only good use for the Lxx is in comparing how individual Hebrew words were rendered into Greek, and how they compare with NT usage. For example: _"The word "deep" in Gen. 1:2 comes from the same Greek word (in the Septuagint) as "bottomless pit" in Rev. 20:1-3."_ (O.A. Johnson, Bible Doctrines, p. 272. Walla Walla Press, 1917.) etc. As for the supposed direct citations from the Lxx by NT authors, I believe there is evidence that shows some of these texts were actually back-translated from the NT to give the appearance of being direct citations. As is the case with Psalms 14:3 (13:3 in the LXX) where Paul's words in Romans 3:13-18 were inserted between verses 3 and 4 making the verse twice as long as the surrounding verses. This has been carried into some Catholic versions requiring the following annotations: _"What follows [v.3] to 'shall not,' (ver. 4,) occurs in S. Paul (Rom. iii. 11-13) ; whence S. Jerome supposes that it has been inserted here, though the apostle took the quotations from different parts of Scripture."_ (Douay-Rheims, 1883 Haydock ed.) _"Here many Greek and Latin texts insert the Old Testament quotations which were _*_first combined_*_ in Rom. __3:13__-18."_ (Holy Bible, edited by J.P. O'Connell, Catholic Press: Chicago, IL. 1954.) etc. Paul often spoke in _Cento,_ which is _"a literary work made up of quotations from other works"_ (lexico .com/en/definition/cento). This is confirmed in _"Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers,"_ on Psalm 14:3, where he acknowledges that, _"Between Psalm 14:3-4 the Alexandrian MS. of the LXX., followed by the Vulg. and the English Prayer-book version, and the Arabic, insert from Romans 3:13-18, the passage beginning, "Their throat is an open sepulchre." The fact of these verses, which are really a CENTO from various psalms and Isaiah, following immediately on the quotation of Psalm 14:2-3, led the copyist to this insertion."_ _"Gill's Exposition"_ on the same verse says: _"Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses, and these are they, "Their throat", &c."_ _"These Scriptures [Romans 3: 10-18] are collected from different Parts of the Old Testament; but there are many Editions of the Lxx. in which they all stand together, in the 14th, or according to their Order, 13th, Psalm; which has given some Occasion to think, that other Alterations may have been made in that Greek Version, to render it more agreeable to the New Testament"_ (Doddridge's Family Expositor, vol. 4, p. 41, 1753.) I believe the false correlation was indeed intended to lend credence to both the apocrypha and Jerome's Vulgate. Blessings..
think of this theoretical scenario: JW in his DL suddenly brakes into a defense of the Latin Vulgate or the Syriac Peshitto as more authoritative in Eph.1.1-6 than the Greek MSS.... :)
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 How could it not be? How do you understand the text and how do you feel it can be reconciled with what the rest of 1 Samuel says about Saul's kingship?
@@sorenpx look at how theologians whose foot fungus has a higher IQ than either of us to see how they handled it. "How could it not be" corrupt? Because God promised His Word to us.
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 Let me ask you, considering that the TR went through a number of revisions, how do you decide which one is the true, inerrant, uncorrupted revision? Furthermore, what was the pure, uncorrupted text before the TR or the MT were compiled?
I don't believe there is ever was a Septuagint. Greek translations of the Old Testament sure there were probably many, but the word Septuagint has a meaning it denotes the 70 or 72 elders that were allegedly commissioned by the King of Egypt to translate the books of Moses into Greek according to the letter of Aristeas which is suspect. I don't think a Greek translation was ever commissioned by a King of Egypt. Many Christians who have bought into the Septuagint propaganda will have a fit when someone tells them there was no Septuagint and just say your some kind of King James only nut a dismiss you. What's curious many of the apologist for the LXX have a weird way of talking about it. If you read between the lines their kind of saying the same thing as the so called King James only nuts. They will often admit the letter Aristeas is full of myths and fables and use the date from that same letter to tell us when the LXX was written.Logically if the claims the letter makes are suspect then so is the date the letter gives for the Septuagint. I think that's their way of slipping in the truth while cloaking it with enough ambiguity to keep those who've bought into the Septuagint myth clinging to it.They will also admit there is more than and it's not a singular translation. I think if there ever was a real Septuagint than it would've been a singular translation.
Great focus on the relevance of the possibly-real Septuagint. I hear you saying the the authority of any translation depends on the original text. Few refer to the OT Hebrew texts as corrupted. So, it follows, many would have to address whether or not the Septuagint texts are are accurate or not. I observe the more poignant question many in Christendom have is: "If Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles all periphrastically eluded to any translation of the OT (i.e. the Septuagint texts), what does that say about the validity, accuracy, and authority of those texts?" Also, "What does a writer of Scripture (and, even Jesus) believe about the inspiration and accuracy of the Hebrew text if they do not quote it in precise fashion, incorporating elements of translations?" Maybe I'm complicating this, but when I start with what I read/see in Scripture; this is where I struggle when conversing with others about the Traditional Text and translations with others who do not believe in the the providential preservation of Scripture.
I think the only good use for the Lxx is in comparing how individual Hebrew words were rendered into Greek, and how they compare with NT usage. For example: _"The word "deep" in Gen. 1:2 comes from the same Greek word (in the Septuagint) as "bottomless pit" in Rev. 20:1-3."_ (O.A. Johnson, Bible Doctrines, p. 272. Walla Walla Press, 1917.) etc.
As for the supposed direct citations from the Lxx by NT authors, I believe there is evidence that shows some of these texts were actually back-translated from the NT to give the appearance of being direct citations. As is the case with Psalms 14:3 (13:3 in the LXX) where Paul's words in Romans 3:13-18 were inserted between verses 3 and 4 making the verse twice as long as the surrounding verses. This has been carried into some Catholic versions requiring the following annotations:
_"What follows [v.3] to 'shall not,' (ver. 4,) occurs in S. Paul (Rom. iii. 11-13) ; whence S. Jerome supposes that it has been inserted here, though the apostle took the quotations from different parts of Scripture."_ (Douay-Rheims, 1883 Haydock ed.)
_"Here many Greek and Latin texts insert the Old Testament quotations which were _*_first combined_*_ in Rom. __3:13__-18."_ (Holy Bible, edited by J.P. O'Connell, Catholic Press: Chicago, IL. 1954.) etc.
Paul often spoke in _Cento,_ which is _"a literary work made up of quotations from other works"_ (lexico .com/en/definition/cento). This is confirmed in _"Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers,"_ on Psalm 14:3, where he acknowledges that, _"Between Psalm 14:3-4 the Alexandrian MS. of the LXX., followed by the Vulg. and the English Prayer-book version, and the Arabic, insert from Romans 3:13-18, the passage beginning, "Their throat is an open sepulchre." The fact of these verses, which are really a CENTO from various psalms and Isaiah, following immediately on the quotation of Psalm 14:2-3, led the copyist to this insertion."_
_"Gill's Exposition"_ on the same verse says: _"Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses, and these are they, "Their throat", &c."_
_"These Scriptures [Romans 3: 10-18] are collected from different Parts of the Old Testament; but there are many Editions of the Lxx. in which they all stand together, in the 14th, or according to their Order, 13th, Psalm; which has given some Occasion to think, that other Alterations may have been made in that Greek Version, to render it more agreeable to the New Testament"_ (Doddridge's Family Expositor, vol. 4, p. 41, 1753.)
I believe the false correlation was indeed intended to lend credence to both the apocrypha and Jerome's Vulgate.
Blessings..
think of this theoretical scenario: JW in his DL suddenly brakes into a defense of the Latin Vulgate or the Syriac Peshitto as more authoritative in Eph.1.1-6 than the Greek MSS.... :)
ironically, this whole discussion does seem to expose the underlying issue: true faith in God's faithfulness or kind-of- faith...
Good video, I have never looked into the Septuagint and was not aware of the large variation in manuscripts. Thanks for posting
thanks... couldn't have said it better.... :)
If you don't allow for any corruption in the Hebrew text, how do you account for Samuel 13:1?
How do you know Samuel 13:1 is corrupted?
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 How could it not be? How do you understand the text and how do you feel it can be reconciled with what the rest of 1 Samuel says about Saul's kingship?
@@sorenpx look at how theologians whose foot fungus has a higher IQ than either of us to see how they handled it. "How could it not be" corrupt? Because God promised His Word to us.
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 Let me ask you, considering that the TR went through a number of revisions, how do you decide which one is the true, inerrant, uncorrupted revision? Furthermore, what was the pure, uncorrupted text before the TR or the MT were compiled?
@@sorenpx I've answered all these questions and more at youngtextlessreformed.com
Well put: if you lose the doctrine of preservation you lose the doctrine of inspiration and you have no Bible.
I don't believe there is ever was a Septuagint. Greek translations of the Old Testament sure there were probably many, but the word Septuagint has a meaning it denotes the 70 or 72 elders that were allegedly commissioned by the King of Egypt to translate the books of Moses into Greek according to the letter of Aristeas which is suspect. I don't think a Greek translation was ever commissioned by a King of Egypt.
Many Christians who have bought into the Septuagint propaganda will have a fit when someone tells them there was no Septuagint and just say your some kind of King James only nut a dismiss you. What's curious many of the apologist for the LXX have a weird way of talking about it. If you read between the lines their kind of saying the same thing as the so called King James only nuts. They will often admit the letter Aristeas is full of myths and fables and use the date from that same letter to tell us when the LXX was written.Logically if the claims the letter makes are suspect then so is the date the letter gives for the Septuagint. I think that's their way of slipping in the truth while cloaking it with enough ambiguity to keep those who've bought into the Septuagint myth clinging to it.They will also admit there is more than and it's not a singular translation. I think if there ever was a real Septuagint than it would've been a singular translation.