Many anti-KJVers make the claim that the supposed OT Greek Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible used by Jesus and the apostles. They refer to any of the times Jesus or the apostles quote the Old Testament. Their argument is that their quotations do not always match word-for-word. That can be attributed sometimes to the fact of going from OT Hebrew, to NT Greek, and in Jesus's case, being spoken in Aramaic. The other explanation is that God is able to paraphrase Himself if He wants, to clarify, expand, limit, or expound on what He said previously. As far as the LXX, the fact that some of the readings match it can be explained by if they were written AFTER the NT and purposely worded to match. But the LXX got caught with its pants down, making a few word 'corrections' to make the OT match the NT, where no correction was needed because the OT and NT shouldn't have matched in those instances (like Jacob leaning on his staff vs. bedpost). Such unwitting accidents show it did indeed copy from the already existing, Greek NT. Origen's version of the LXX, some 200 years after the NT, cannot be produced, and certainly no B.C. LXX can be produced.
The above are solid reason's refuting the contention that Jesus quoted the LXX, however, information from Kent Brandenburg's "Thou Shalt Keep Them" (along with Thomas Strouse and others) makes the case airtight. And they use the scripture to make their points.
STRIKE ONE
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
I have used this verse often in the past to show that Jesus did not accept the apocrypha as valid (http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm).
In this verse, Jesus Christ Himself, reveals the three divisions of the Old Testament. They are the Law (also called the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books), and the Psalms (also called the writings). They are alternately known in the Jewish Masoretic Old Testament as the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim. Every book in the Masoretic OT, and the KJV OT, fits into one of those three divisions. None of the apocryphal books do.
Additionally, the LXX texts are not divided into the same book groupings as the OT Hebrew Masoretic, and they do contain apocryphal writings. Thus, Jesus did not consider the LXX as canonical
scripture.
STRIKE TWO
Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
This verse also attests to the Hebrew Masoretic text, in which the book order begins with Abel, who was killed in the first book of the Masoretic OT (Genesis) and ends with Zacharias, who was killed in the last book in the Masoretic OT (2 Chronicles).
The Greek LXX is not arranged like the OT Hebrew Bible, it ends with Malachi. Thus Jesus was not referring to the Septuagint, He was referring to the Hebrew Masoretic text.
STRIKE THREE, YER OUT!
Matt 5:18 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.
As with the other examples, this points to the Hebrew, not the Greek. The LXX doesn't contain jots and tittles, but the Masoretic text does. Therefore Jesus had to be quoting from the Hebrew Masoretic OT, not the Greek Septuagint OT.
So here we have three solid evidences that Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, not the Greek LXX Old Testament. The latter two show that Jesus did not quote from the apocrypha. The first example also shows He did not regard it as canonical scripture.
As to your third argument:
ReplyDeleteThe LXX doesn't contain jots and tittles, but the Masoretic text does. Therefore Jesus had to be quoting from the Hebrew Masoretic OT, not the Greek Septuagint OT.
A Hebrew text not Masoretic, but at origin of LXX may also have had jots and tittles.
As to your second argument:
This verse also attests to the Hebrew Masoretic text, in which the book order begins with Abel, who was killed in the first book of the Masoretic OT (Genesis) and ends with Zacharias, who was killed in the last book in the Masoretic OT (2 Chronicles). The Greek LXX is not arranged like the OT Hebrew Bible, it ends with Malachi. Thus Jesus was not referring to the Septuagint, He was referring to the Hebrew Masoretic text.
1) He may have been aware of a canon arranged like Masoretic, but where text was like LXX;
2) He may have known Masoretic and given allusion to it to its adherents, the Pharisees;
3) He may have been talking about a new martyr called Zacharias, the father of St John the Baptist.
Your first argument is even weaker:
In this verse, Jesus Christ Himself, reveals the three divisions of the Old Testament. They are the Law (also called the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books), and the Psalms (also called the writings). They are alternately known in the Jewish Masoretic Old Testament as the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim. Every book in the Masoretic OT, and the KJV OT, fits into one of those three divisions. None of the apocryphal books do.
Every one of the books fit one of the three divisions, none is the law, but either they fit prophets, like Baruch, or writings, like Maccabees or Jesus Ben Syrach (Judges and Samuel are obviously neither law nor prophets, and neither is, probably, Proverbs, so both literature of wisdom and post-Pentateuch historic narrative are writings).
{{A Hebrew text not Masoretic, but at origin of LXX may also have had jots and tittles.}}
ReplyDeleteOnly if the LXX of origin was *Hebrew*, but then it wouldn't be a pre-NT Greek OT, would it?
1) He may have been aware
2) He may have known
3) He may have been talking
Sounds like I'm debating an evolutionist here :-/
{{Every one of the books fit one of the three divisions}}
NONE of them are in ANY of the three divisions of the Hebrew scripture. You can put them in anywhere after the fact, but that doesn't mean they were there before. They WEREN'T.
{{But perhaps St Paul or St Barnabas, whoever wrote Hebrews of the two, did?}}
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't have, for the same reasons Jesus didn't.
Except that one of them did.
ReplyDeleteAnd you did not get me right:
Your take: "Only if the LXX of origin was *Hebrew*,"
No, what I had said was:
"A Hebrew text not Masoretic, but AT origin OF LXX"
We agree the LXX text itself is Greek, right?
So, I was referring to whatever HEBREW text came before that GREEK text.
"NONE of them are in ANY of the three divisions of the Hebrew scripture. You can put them in anywhere after the fact, but that doesn't mean they were there before. They WEREN'T."
Oh, wait, you meant "weren't" as in Masoretic text not including them?
Isn't that begging the question "how do you know Masoretic text is more original than the Hebrew text behind LXX?"
I thought you had meant do not fit the categories, and that is what I answered. But they DO fit the categories and LXX is translated from a Hebrew or Hebrew and Aramaic text which DID include them.
{{Except that one of them did}}
ReplyDeleteOr the LXX smoothed itself to match the NT.
{{"how do you know Masoretic text is more original than the Hebrew text behind LXX?"}}
What text? Some made up one nobody used? God lost His text and the Jews used the wrong one for two or three thousand years? That's the story you're going with?
"God lost His text and the Jews used the wrong one for two or three thousand years? That's the story you're going with?"
ReplyDeleteGod kept His text in Hebrew long enough to get it in Greek and Syriac and Latin.
God then kept His text in Greek, Syriac and Latin, while Christ-rejecting Jews falsified the text of the Hebrew version, so that this one no longer can be said to constitute an original.
{{this one no longer can be said to constitute an original}}
ReplyDeleteWe don't know what the original was, but we do know the Masoretic has been used for millennia - and it was used before Christ, so you can't blame it on Christ-rejecting Jews.