[Brother Tim]

I am starting this thread in response to a suggestion by Steven Avery to review some of the teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman [not as a means of personal attack or support of him] from a Biblical prospective.

One topic that is of interest to many is whether or not the Septuagint (LXX) existed B.C. and whether or not it was used by the NT writers as a reference; or conversely, is it a figment of the mind based on the work of early century heretics?

Sam Gipp questions its existence, so I suppose that Dr. Ruckman does also (not having read his teachings on this specifically). Matthew Verschuur supports its existence (right, Matthew?). What are the facts?

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

I am starting this thread in response to a suggestion by Steven Avery to review some of the teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman [not as a means of personal attack or support of him] from a Biblical prospective.

One topic that is of interest to many is whether or not the Septuagint (LXX) existed B.C. and whether or not it was used by the NT writers as a reference; or conversely, is it a figment of the mind based on the work of early century heretics?

Sam Gipp questions its existence, so I suppose that Dr. Ruckman does also (not having read his teachings on this specifically). Matthew Verschuur supports its existence (right, Matthew?). What are the facts?

No, the LXX is a myth, says Ruckman. There is a chapter dedicated to "The Mythological LXX" in Ruckman's The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. (I am not a Ruckmanite.)

I am not addressing Ruckman's comments here - but from what I have read regarding the Septuagint, ALL that existed prior to Christ was the Pentateuch translated into Greek. The first actual account and copies of all the OT in Greek were done by Origen (there were no copies of the OT in Greek found that existed prior to this time).

Alfred Edersheim (a 19th century messianic Jewish scholar) makes mention of this, and quotes or refers to Josephus to back up his statements. Edersheim's book that he makes this comment is The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah. If you have the book in electronic format or part of a Bible program, you can search it for "Pentateuch" and find his comments. In other words, it is not a 20th century philosophy or invention that the whole Septuagint did not exist prior to the time of Christ.

Originally Posted by jerry

I am not addressing Ruckman's comments here - but from what I have read regarding the Septuagint, ALL that existed prior to Christ was the Pentateuch translated into Greek. The first actual account and copies of all the OT in Greek were done by Origen (there were no copies of the OT in Greek found that existed prior to this time).

That's right, and Origen lived after the Ascension of Christ.

Alfred Edersheim (a 19th century messianic Jewish scholar) makes mention of this, and quotes or refers to Josephus to back up his statements. Edersheim's book that he makes this comment is The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah.

I have this book. The subject on LXX is on pg 23 to 30.

If you have the book in electronic format or part of a Bible program, you can search it for "Pentateuch" and find his comments. In other words, it is not a 20th century philosophy or invention that the whole Septuagint did not exist prior to the time of Christ.

In other words, it is a 20th century invention that the LXX, partially or wholly, existed prior to Christ.

Wow, I've believed for years that the Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek done by Jewish scholars during about three hundred years up to the time of Christ. I had no idea anybody disputed this. As I've understood it, it began with the Torah or Pentateuch about 300 BC or so, and then other books were added over the next few centuries -- not all perhaps, but most or something like that. I also understood that the way the New Testament phrases its references to the Old Testament shows that it was based on the Septuagint Greek translation.

I can't see why on earth anyone would doubt that such a translation existed. It was clearly needed by the Jews who were scattered throughout the Hellenic world of the time, and that's why it was ordered to be done.

I hope you all will be supplying evidence one way or the other instead of just assertions that this or that person believes this or that about it.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

I can't see why on earth anyone would doubt that such a translation existed.

Whether or not it existed is less important than whether or not any of the LXX was actually used by Christ or the authors of the NT. Modernists interested in pressing the case that corrupt translations are "a-okay" try to convince people that the NT itslef contains quotations from the LXX. It does not -- where the LXX agrees with the NT it is simply because the LXX got it right.

It was clearly needed by the Jews

Says who? It was needed by academics of the day. The Jews would not have trusted their texts to the scholars that produced the LXX.

I suggest you read Chapter 6 of Crowned With Glory which addresses the LXX question. Here are some quotes:

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 otherwise) 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 that 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.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks Tim for opening up a fascinating thread. I will only have time for a couple of quick comments at the moment. This first one is probably the most substantive in filling in the scholarship blanks.

Originally Posted by jerry

ALL that existed prior to Christ was the Pentateuch translated into Greek. The first actual account and copies of all the OT in Greek were done by Origen (there were no copies of the OT in Greek found that existed prior to this time)... Alfred Edersheim (a 19th century messianic Jewish scholar) makes mention of this, and quotes or refers to Josephus to back up his statements.

Hi Jerry,

However, I do not see that Edersheim takes that position.

http://www.levendwater.org/books/lif...heim_book1.pdf
Ptolemy III., who reigned from 247 to 221 b.c.29 In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX. version as, at least substantially, completed.

If there are some quotes to share from Edersheim that back up the 'no Greek copies' and Origen positions, please share. I have not read his pages very carefully, often I find him dry, but on many topics he has a lot of good stuff, including the Greek OT issues.

However we do have a very strong indication from Josephus, apparently not mentioned by Edersheim and even neglected by more recent writers, that the Hebrew history books were not available in Greek when Josephus wrote Antiquities. From his Preface and Antiquities proper, bold added.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm
Antiquities of the Jews -- Preface

"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, (Jewish Wars 75AD) to explain who the Jews originally were, - what fortunes they had been subject to, - and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, - what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work (Antiquities 93 AD) would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language."

And this section in Antiquities.

http://www.godrules.net/library/flav...viusb10c10.htm
Antiquities of the Jews 10.218

"But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than translate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there."

Why this has been missed in most discussions in a puzzle. Josephus writes plainly, and what he writes indicates that he planned to translate the history books of the Tanach (OT) to Greek, to make those available, but he decided to write Antiquities instead. This essentially cinches the case that there was not a full Old Testament circulating in Greek even by the end of the first century.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Brother Tim]

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled. My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all.

[Brother Tim]

Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled.

Welcome. I actually picked up this information on a skeptic board, where it was being used for confused reasons. Yet the obvious implications, which we see clearly and 'scholarship' has missed, are totally compelling.

It is as close to a one-quote (ok..two) settlement of a dispute as you are likely to see. How anyone can claim that there was a circulating full Greek OT at the time of Jesus and the apostolic writings of the NT, in the wake of the Josephus reference to the lack of the history books in Greek, is a real puzzle.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all....Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

Yes. This is one of those malleable terms, and that is one of the problems in ever using it without ultra-caution (I generally use 'Greek OT'). 'LXX' or 'Septuagint' is meant to give an impression of antiquity (what occurred c 250 BC) to MSS that are 4th century and later, even knowing the ultra-squirrelly transmissional history of the first centuries AD. Even some in scholarship realms recoil at the loose usage of the term.

Shalom,
Steven