Lxx


#1

How many times does the New Testament quote the LXX?

Thank you!


#2

[quote=Jim Baur]How many times does the New Testament quote the LXX?

Thank you!
[/quote]

Western Scholars say around 300 time. But that is an assumption. Most of those quotes come from an Aramaic OT and others are targums.


#3

What in the world is an lxx?


#4

From:catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002qq.asp

**Q: Would it be possible for you to cite the Scripture passages that Jesus used when he quoted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and what Septuagint passages are clearly alluded to in the New Testament?
**
http://www.catholic.com/images/1x1trans.gif

A: If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.

But, since you ask, here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, go to the Internet site cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.
*
– Jason Evert*


#5

An additional question (full answer: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409qq.asp ):

Q: I recently watched a debate between a Christian and a Muslim. The latter said there were contradictions in the Bible and gave as an example a passage saying Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls and another passage saying he had 40,000. What should I make of this?

A: Don’t make a mountain out of it. The passages you refer to are 2 Chronicles 9:25, which says Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, and 1 Kings 4:26, which in some translations says he had 40,000 of them (this latter verse is numbered 1Kings 5:6 in the New American Bible). Those translations which give the number 40,000 are based on the Masoretic Text, the Old Testament used by Jews in the Middle Ages. But if one checks the Septuagint (LXX), one discovers manuscripts giving the number 4,000–the same as in 2 Chronicles 9:25.

Additional answers about the canon:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

RyanL


#6

[quote=Chazemataz]What in the world is an lxx?
[/quote]

LXX stands for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, it was used by the Apostles and the early Christians. Supposedly it was translated by 70 scholars, which is why it is called the Septuagint (LXX).


#7

Ryan. Incorrect and it just goes to show the ethnocentric nature of western scholarship. The fact is, and I urge you to do the research yourself, that the NT quotes which allegedly come from the LXX actually come from an Aramaic source. The LXX and the Aramaic OT were both translated from a common Hebrew text so their rendering of passages are very close. The alleged NT quotes are closer to the Aramaic than to the LXX. Much closer. The variants in the NT quotes, when compared to the LXX have been “assumed” to be caused by variants in the Greek. There are no variants in the Aramaic.

In other words, quotes in the Greek NT do NOT exactly match that of either the HOT or the LXX. But they do match that of the Aramaic OT.

YES the LXX was used extensively, almost exclusively by the Ancient (Gentile) Church, but it was never used by the Judean Church or buy any other Aramaic speaking Church.

And one more thing. Your quotation says the NT quotes the Masoretic 33 times. The NT NEVER quotes from the Masoretic text. It did not exist until the 9th century.


#8

metal1633,
First, I don’t claim to be an authority on this stuff. By default, I trust the scholars at Catholic Answers above a fellow poster. If you would have me believe what you say, I offer one piece of advice: Sources, sources, sources!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

The oldest complete manuscripts of the Masoretic Text known to still exist date from approximately the ninth century, butthere are many earlier fragments that appear to belong in the same textual family. For example, amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments found at other places in the Judean desert, there are some which differ from the Masoretic Text in only about 1 letter of each 1000 letters…

It was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the first and tenth centuries CE. It has numerous differences when compared to the Septuagint, of both little and great significance.

That said, I’m not convinced that the author meant “Masoretic texts” - I believe he meant the HOT, but if there’s a serious question about it you should notify CA about the article.

…YES the LXX was used extensively, almost exclusively by the Ancient (Gentile) Church, but it was never used by the Judean Church or buy any other Aramaic speaking Church.

  1. You may be entirely correct about this, but it doesn’t change the fact that the New Testament writers used the LXX and gave us the divinely inspired Greek New Testament.
  2. I encourage you to research the following link, and let me know just how messed up he is (you may also want to e-mail him):
    scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Once again, if you would have me believe you I require sources.

Peace be with you, my brother in Christ,
RyanL


#9

The first example on that link is a perfect one.

The Virgin vs Young Woman argument.

But Matthew is not quoting the LXX

LXX Says…Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold the Virgin shall conceive in the womb and bring forth a son. And you shall call his name Emmanuel.

Matthew says…Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call him name Immanuel.

Now some will say that is a paraphrase of the LXX but it is a direct quote from the Aramaic.

Do I need to go through ALL of them for you?? All 300?

Think about the absurdity of the idea that Messiah, while preaching in Aramaic, should quote the LXX.

Even if you are fluent in Greek and reading a Greek NT you are nevertheless reading a translation of our Lord’s sayings.


#10

[quote=metal1633]Now some will say that is a paraphrase of the LXX but it is a direct quote from the Aramaic.
[/quote]

As you are Maronite Rite, I don’t doubt that you read Aramaic. Do you have an English translation of the Aramaic text dated from that century (obviously I’m not asking for an original, but for a copy of an Aramaic text believed to have existed in Jesus’ time)?

[quote=metal1633] Do I need to go through ALL of them for you?? All 300?
[/quote]

One or two should be sufficient, as long as you can also show the Aramaic from that time.

[quote=metal1633] Think about the absurdity of the idea that Messiah, while preaching in Aramaic, should quote the LXX.

Even if you are fluent in Greek and reading a Greek NT you are nevertheless reading a translation of our Lord’s sayings.
[/quote]

I am unaware of an Aramaic text - if you know one, please show your cards (with sources, please). As far as I know, Hebrew was a dead language, Aramaic was the common tongue of the region, and Greek was the “trade language” of the region which was known by merchants and others (like fishermen). Knowing this (and not knowing about an Aramaic translation), I do not find it absurd that the common Jew would use the Greek LXX over the “dead” Hebrew (which it’s unclear that a non-priest would know).

Also, the “Greek NT” is the only New Testament I know to be divinely inspired, translation from the original spoken Aramaic or not. It remains what the Church teaches to be divinely inspired - not the Aramaic New Testament “original”.

Again, I’m no expert, so if you have sources to back up your assertion I’m willing to listen.

Peace,
RyanL


#11

Jimmy Akin’s page really helped me.


closed #12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.