Hebrews and the resiliant LXX

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

MATT BELL
Your response above makes no comment on the validity or otherwise of the
explanation of the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'? Nor have you (or any others)
commented on the removal of the Rylands Fragment #458; the Letter of
Aristeas and the comments of Aristobulus as evidence of a BC LXX. If you
are not careful I might begin thinking I have a case <g>. 

STEVE CR
At another time I might argue about the theological problems of Hebrews
10:5. My point was, it is very clear that the writer of Hebrews quoted from
the LXX and not the MT because they are so different.

MATT BELL
Clear? Yeah, about as clear as mud. Deal with the explanation and then make
assertions. 

STEVE CR
The argument you presented above has no relationship to any evidence about
the priority of the LXX to the NT.

MATT BELL
The argument that I have now snipped was headed and related to what you and
Helen presented as the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'. A response has been
presented removing the problem. Demonstrate how that explanation is flawed?


STEVE CR
As for the 'Rylands fragment, Letter of Aristeas, and comments of
Aristobolus'... Matt, didn't you read the comments to the Mansbacher Email?
It's good that you read the Letter of Aristeas for yourself, but we already
knew that it only dealt with the Pentateuch.

MATT BELL
Of all the people who made comments on the letter if Aristeas how many:

1. Did not cite it as evidence of the LXX - allegedely an Greek translation
of the OT (not just the Pentateuch)?
2. Mention that it related only to the Pentateuch?

STEVE CR (27/4)
See my other Email

STEVE CR
If you can put together an argument that involves all of the evidence so
far presented, I'm sure someone will be glad to answer. I am amazed you can
make your last comment above. You haven't even started.

MATT BELL
The Letter of Aristeas, Rylands Papyus #458 and Aristobulos statement are,
so far, the strongest arguments that have been put forward. The Jesus Ben
Sirach statement was dealt with (with no return comments that I am aware
of), by Paul Mansbacher. That leaves what? The Aquila statement, Josephus
and the alleged use of the NT writers of the LXX which is really not an
evidence as it presupposes without evidence that they quoted the LXX and
not vice versa? Have I missed anything? Do you accept that the Letter of
Aristeas, Rylands Papyrus #458 and Aristobulos statement relate ONLY to a
BC Greek translation of the Pentateuch, and therefore do not establish the
existence of a BC LXX? If not, why not?

STEVE CR (27/4)
Now I really am confused. The LXX Pentateuch existed BC? It was a Greek
translation of the OT Pentateuch?

Well, I'm indebted to another evangelical for the following which once
again calls on our trusty, non-LXX friend, the writer of Hebrews.


>From "The New Testament Use of the Old Testament" by Moises Silva (from

'Scripture and Truth' p. 150)

"In Hebrews 11:21 we read that Jacob, when he was at the point of death,
blessed Joseph's sons "and worshipped upon the top of his staff." These
words are an exact quotation from the LXX of Genesis 47:31 (kai
prosekynesen epi to akron tes rhabdou autou). The difficulty arises when we
check our English versions of Genesis, which say nothing about a staff;
rather, they speak of Israel (Jacob) as bowing down on the head of his
*bed*... "

For Matt's benefit I have checked my Greek NT which claims to be "the Greek
text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611" and it is the Greek
above. I have no way of checking the Greek of the LXX, but book 'Scripture
and Truth' is a fairly scholarly book.

Now apart from establishing a BC Pentateuchal LXX (which we all agree on),
doesn't this show that the writer of Hebrews used the LXX (only
Pentateuchal of course)?

I have the question mark because.. it seems so to me. But I'm sure there's
another good explanation...

Got it! Yes, the Pentateuchal LXX existed BC, but.. the writer of Hebrews
didn't quote from it. He quoted the MT, changing the text subtly to make
his inspired point, but in no way violating the original meaning of the
text, and then when Origen came to produce his rest-of-the-OT-LXX he simply
amended his translation in line with this extract from Hebrews.

How'd I do, Matt? How'd I do?

In a later Email I will show how the two versions are entirely compatible
and the textual change does not alter the meaning one whit!

Steve Carson-Rowland
Queensland - Land of Eternal Summer

• Previous message: Fallback Jesus
• Next message: Hebrews and the resiliant LXX
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]