Septunagit (With Apocrypha books)

[sparkman]

I've heard good things about both of these books. in addition, Craig Blomberg has some good books on this topic, maybe easier to read than FF Bruce. Bruce is well respected but his book seems a bit dry to me.

I haven't read the Blomberg books yet but here's the titles:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Can We Still Believe the Bible?

I wouldn't even bother with the Apocrypha personally. Maccabees has some good history but it's not necessary. So I agree with what you said.

I recommend two books on the subject

Bruce, F.F., "The Canon of Scripture"
Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction To The Bible"

There are two additional books that give added help but no matter what I teach you regarding the Canon of Scripture, there are people hell bent on adding to the Canon and they will work very hard at confusing you so that you accept their books.

I think people really need to start from Deuteronomy 18 to help determine the cannon. God said He would raise up a prophet and if people don't listen then God would require it of him (v. 19). It also says if the prophet speaks in the name of other gods (plural) or if the thing doesn't come to pass (v. 22) then the prophet is in a lot of trouble.

You might ask what a prophet has to do with the "Cannon" of Scripture? It all has to do with claims of authority to speak for God since the Church which was "...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20).

Then you have a framework to start asking questions like: Who were the apostles and prophets? One clue comes from Jesus and it is important for everyone to know their Bibles. "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 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."-Luke 11:50-51

There you start with a genealogy of the prophets which was from Abel to Zacherias. If you have books before or after these men then you have to have other Biblical support from Jesus or they have to be classified apart from the Prophets.

Another evidence for what was included in the Canon comes from Jesus. “…that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.”-Luke 24:44 Jesus gives the division of scripture and it doesn’t include the Apocrypha because the division is "The Law of Moses", "The Prophets" and the "Psalms".

 

[sparkman]

I'm currently reading the Apocrypha. I can see why the books were left out because they are confusing poorly written

Yeah, and silly as well..is it Tobit that claims a demon was in love with a woman, and that it had to be scared away by burning the liver of a lizard?

 

[sparkman]

The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance.

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text(Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.

But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.

Textus Receptus did not reflect 5000 manuscripts..it only reflected a relatively small amount of manuscripts, and they were relatively late in origin...

By the way we have the Textus Receptus to thank for aberrant practices like snake handling and poison drinking as signs of faith...if it wasn't for the Textus Receptus no one would have thought of those things included in the long ending of Mark.

 

[sparkman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Alexander, here's a few Wikipedia articles on this topic.

Textus Receptus is the Greek New Testament basis for the KJV.
Novum Testamentum Graece is basically the Nestle Aland and is the Greek New Testament basis for modern translations.

As I said previously, the Novum Testamentum Graece incorporates earlier and more manuscript evidence than the Textus Receptus.

One of the things I find humorous is that many KJV Only guys are strongly anti-Roman Catholic yet Erasmus was a Catholic scholar who bent to Rome's will and incorporated the Comma Johanneum based on a doctored manuscript. In addition, King James was a homosexual and he commissioned the KJV translation. Yet, they try similar ad hominem attacks on those involved in modern translations, including the individuals and the publishers.

 

[tanakh]

I think there is some confusion here with the Septuagint and the Apocrypha. There is nothing wrong with the Septuagint.
It is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and was used by the writers of the New Testament. It was translated by Hebrew scribes. According to tradition there were seventy of them. Septuagint means Seventy. It is the Apocryphal books that were later added to it that are the problem.

 

[JimmieD]

What's the general consensus on the Septunagit...and the Apocrypha books?

To my understanding, these were all the books of the Torah and the old bible, prior to Jesus. It was what Jesus referred to when admonishing the Jewish authorities. While Jesus was the last Adam, and saved us from ALL sin on the Cross, what value is the septunagit to us?

Does it contain truth withheld by authorities, or was it unnecessary? Please be advises, I am an academic asking this question. Please do not give me a lazy answer.

Thank you.

The Septuagint is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. There are no "authorities withholding truth." You can purchase a Septuagint or read it free online.

The Septuagint is valuable because (a) it's historically useful in textual criticism, (b) it helps in establishing how some Jews during Second Temple Judaism understood the Hebrew Bible and (c) it has been used as an authoritative text throughout church history.

 

[valiant]

That's actually the reason I chose to even consider over-viewing the Septuagint.

In the time of Jesus, obviously, there was no New Testament yet. Jesus IS the foundation of the New Testament, among other things, such as our salvation and redemption. In this time of the Jewish pharisees and scribes, they had their source of scripture (Which I understand to be the Jewish Torah/Talmud), and as a result, the BOY Jesus, learned of the basic tenets of faith from these works, and most of the admonition Jesus gave towards the hypocrite Jewish pharisees and sadducees was based on the scriptural work provided during that time period, which was most of the books of the Septuagint (And therefore, by association, the Torah/Talmud).

Jesus mainly studied the Hebrew Scriptures, which was based on the Law (Torah), the prophets and the Psalms which He also cited to the Apostles (Luke 24.44). This excluded the Apocrypha. He would have cited the Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic,

One point I want to make clear, which we can ALL agree on, as Christians, is that by the death and ressurection of our LORD Jesus Christ, we are brought to salvation without the need to adhere to Jewish law. The context of OUR faith lies in Jesus, but in the PERSPECTIVE of the context of the Septuagint/Apocrypha, we are talking about BEFORE JESUS' CRUCIFIXION, which is BEFORE BORN-AGAIN SALVATION

.

It is doubtful if Jesus quoted any of the LXX or even knew it. Certainly he would not know of the books of the Apocrypha which at the time were individual books. He was basically Jewish, and cited the Jewish Scriptures,

In the context of the OLD TESTAMENT and God's plan from Adam to Christ, does the Septuagint hold as probable spiritual history, akin to the likes of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophets?

the LXX WAS the Old Testament translated into Greek with many additions. We do not have the original LXX. It was a much later translation that we have.

Are they irrelevant? Do they hold historical significance? Are they to be considered part of God's plan?

No more than any other translation. They were not 'inspired' translations. The LXX quoted in part of the NT is unknown to us. We only have later translations.

 

[valiant]

The Septuagint is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. There are no "authorities withholding truth." You can purchase a Septuagint or read it free online.

We know that they did not fully understand ancient Hebrew, and that the translations were free translations.,

The Septuagint is valuable because (a) it's historically useful in textual criticism, (b) it helps in establishing how some Jews during Second Temple Judaism understood the Hebrew Bible and (c) it has been used as an authoritative text throughout church history.

I}. true. 2). The translations we have are far too modern to help us to know how second temple Judaism viewed the Hebrew Bible. 3). It has only been an authoritative text of the LXX.

we need to remember there is not one LXX. It was translated and retranslated a number of times, beginning from 3rd century BC

 

[John146]

The facts are that these so called "oldest and best manuscripts” are among the most corrupt and contradictory of manuscripts out there. They not only disagree with the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but also with each other. A far more reasonable explanation for their old age is due to the fact that they were recognized as being hopelessly corrupt and therefore were not used. That is why they didn't wear out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Alexander, here's a few Wikipedia articles on this topic.

Textus Receptus is the Greek New Testament basis for the KJV.
Novum Testamentum Graece is basically the Nestle Aland and is the Greek New Testament basis for modern translations.

As I said previously, the Novum Testamentum Graece incorporates earlier and more manuscript evidence than the Textus Receptus.

One of the things I find humorous is that many KJV Only guys are strongly anti-Roman Catholic yet Erasmus was a Catholic scholar who bent to Rome's will and incorporated the Comma Johanneum based on a doctored manuscript. In addition, King James was a homosexual and he commissioned the KJV translation. Yet, they try similar ad hominem attacks on those involved in modern translations, including the individuals and the publishers.

 

[4enlightment]

What's the general consensus on the Septunagit...and the Apocrypha books?

To my understanding, these were all the books of the Torah and the old bible, prior to Jesus. It was what Jesus referred to when admonishing the Jewish authorities. While Jesus was the last Adam, and saved us from ALL sin on the Cross, what value is the septunagit to us?

Does it contain truth withheld by authorities, or was it unnecessary? Please be advises, I am an academic asking this question. Please do not give me a lazy answer.

Thank you.

At the time, that most of the Jews did not know how to speak Hebrew, and so the scribes had the old testament translated into Greek so that the Pharisees could read them, but they has kept the originals in the same way that it was written since the time of Moses. The scribes had copied the old testament when the original goes bad and so they kept making new copies exactly the same like a copier does; but the scribes had to memorized every word by word just in case something happens to all of the originals ( Like when Nero had their whole entire records destroyed ) so that it can be replaced, like a memory card are used for. But the original had stay on display until someone comes along that has the ability to understand ancient Hebrew language can break open the scrolls to read what it says. Maybe that is why they were amazed at the young Jesus that He was able to read from the original Hebrew scrolls and understand them perfectly.


The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted a number of times in the New Testament,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] particularly in Pauline epistles,[SUP][3][/SUP] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Separated from the Hebrew canon of the Jewish Bible in Rabbinic Judaism, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

 

[fredoheaven]

The usual belief concerning the Septuagint is that the Septuagint (LXX) Version is a standard (official) translation of a Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, translated in Alexandria, Egypt, around 250 B.C. It became the Old Testament of the Greek-speaking Jews, and was not the Bible most used and quoted from by Christ and the apostles.

So, then, what does it matter if there was a standard Greek Old Testament in existence before Christ? There are a number of resulting implications:

1. Since the Apocrypha are part of the LXX, and since Christ and the apostles more often used and quoted from the LXX (as is claimed) there is an implied endorsement of the Apocrypha. SO, then, there is a certain probability that apocryphal books will end up in the Bible accepted by conservatives, as they come to recognize this inconsistency.

2. Christ and the apostles often quoted from the LXX (as claimed), this accounts for differences in wording when the New Testament quotes from the Old.

3. Since the Jews modified their Hebrew Text to spite the Christians (who were using the LXX), the Hebrew Masoretic Text represents a recension from the original Hebrew." Therefore the Authorized Version cannot be entirely accurate.

4. Since the earliest existing manuscript of the Masoretic Text is dated at 895 A.D., while the earliest existing manuscript of the LXX is dated at c. 250 A.D., we have a document much closer to the original Hebrew" text.

The LXX is held in high esteem by most textual critics, who in reality use it to attack the underlying text of the Authorized Version

The earliest existing manuscripts of the LXX are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. produced between 350 and 500 A.D.

See the rendering of Aquila’s translation comes from Henry Barclay Swede’s 1902 book, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, page 38. This shows the LXX on the left (note this is from Manuscript B which is the symbol for the 4th century Codex Vaticanus)…

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/swete/intro-to-the-ot-in-gk_swete.pdf

 

[fredoheaven]

Biblical argument against the LXX.

God ruled out any Egyptian translation of the Old Testament in Jeremiah 44:26-28:

Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. [27] Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land
of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them. [28] Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs."

Moreover, only those belonging to the priestly tribe of Levi were to copy the scriptures { See Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25, 33:10, 1 Chronicles 16:4, Ezra 7:1-6, and Malachi 2:7. The scribes begin with Ezra, who returned to Palestine in 457 B.C. The colony of Jews in Egypt had begun about 131 years earlier. It is reasonable to expect the scribal tradition to continue in Palestine, but not Alexandria. Besides, Acts 6:1, 21:37, 22:2, and Philippians 3:5 indicate that there was some rivalry between Hebrews (Palestinian Jews) and Graecians (Hellenistic Jews)