The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR/F.Till)
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:47:29 +0100 (00893695649, 19980427114940671.AAA1135@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> >STEVE CR (27/4)
>
> <snip>
>
> >Also, you didn't mention Philo Judaeus in your comment. From what I can
> >gather, he and Josephus are irrelevant. Origen went through all the
writers
> >that pre-dated him who had ever quoted from the OT and amended his
> >translation (soon to be called the LXX) to match up with every quote
from
> >Philo. And although these differ from the wonderfully preserved MT that
we
> >have, they in fact are the same text (somehow).
> >
> >Perhaps you can indicate if this is the substance of your argument. It
> >appears to be. Lacking the caustic wit of Farrell Till I'll just say
that
> >if anyone else on the list thinks that Matt's argument is in any way
> >presuasive for the LXX coming after the NT please say so now and I'll
> >summon up the effort to write another Email.
MATT BELL
No it is not the substance of my argument. I have nowhere asserted that
Origen did what you claim above. With regard to Philo, I do not have his
works, nor can find anything on the net to work through and check. With
Josephus I have 'The Essential Writings' which I will be beginning to work
through today. If you can summon up the effort and save the thread
continuing until that is accomplished then simply post the relevant quotes
from both Philo and Josephus.
>
> TILL
> Philo Judaeus lived from about 20 B. C. to 50 A. D. In other words, he
was
> a contemporary of the time that Jesus allegedly lived, and so he wrote
> before most of the NT was completed. In my edition of *The Works of
Philo,
> Complete and Unabridged,* published by Hendrickson in 1993, there is a
> six-page index of the scriptures that he quoted. There are about 950
> different listings, so I don't have the time to check them all. I have
> looked at many of them, however, and it is obvious that Philo, who wrote
in
> Greek, quoted the Septuagint. I don't have the time to analyze the
various
> quotations that Philo used to show that he was obviously quoting the
> Septuagint, but one clear example will suffice to show what Matt will
find
> if he should seriously undertake an investigation of this matter.
>
> Genesis 46:27 in English translations derived from the Masoretic text
state
> that "all the souls of the house of Jacob that came into Egypt were
> threescore and ten" or, in other words, seventy.
>
> On page 272 of my edition of the works of Philo, he said, "For it is said
> that thy fathers went down into Egypt, being seventy souls."
>
> The Septuagint translates Genesis 46:27 like this: "All the souls of the
> house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt were SEVENTY-FIVE souls."
>
> The Masoretic text claims that 70 "souls" went into Egypt with Jacob, but
> both Philo and the Septuagint translation say that the number was 75, so
it
> should be apparent what version Philo was citing.
MATT BELL
I don't have the works of Philo to check, but in your above quote you first
state that Philo on page 272 says '...being seventy souls', and then 'both
Philo and the Septuagint translation say that the number was 75'? Which
does Philo state, 70 or 75? If seventy it agrees with the Masoretic, if
seventy-five the LXX?
FARRELL TILL
> Furthermore, we read this
> statement in Stephen's defense before the council trying him in Acts 8:
"And
> Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred,
THREE
> SCORE AND FIFTEEN SOULS" (v:14). Three score and fifteen would be 75, so
> the writer of Acts had Stephen also refer to the Septuagint in order to
get
> the information about how many of Jacob's family went into Egypt.
According
> to Matt, however, the Septuagint didn't exist until after the NT was
> written, which would have also been after Philo lived, so Matt needs to
> explain how that both Philo and Luke (the writer of Acts) could have
gotten
> information from a text that didn't exist. Furthermore, if the Masoretic
> text had been so wonderfully preserved, why didn't Philo and Luke just
say
> that 70 souls went into Egypt with Jacob? What was the purpose of
> fabricating another five people?
MATT BELL
I can't comment on Philo until you clarify whether his works say seventy or
seventy-five? As for the Acts passage I will once again offer the comments
of Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc:
'What are we to conclude when we encounter footnotes such as that at Acts
7:14 informing us that the LXX conforms in reading "75" in Genesis 46:26-27
(and at Exo.1:5) whereas the Hebrew supposedly errs and contradicts Acts in
recording "70" in the Genesis passage. The footnote continues to say that
the 5 missing names in the Hebrew text are preserved in the LXX at Genesis
46:20 where Machir, the son of Manasseh, and Machir's son Galaad (Hebrew =
Gilead) are recorded along with Ephraim's two son's Taam (Tahan) and
Sutalaam (Shuthelah) and his son Edom. These names have been interpolated
by conjecture from Genesis 50:23 and Numbers 26:29, 35-36 (vs. 33, 39 and
40 in LXX). We are informed that as the Hebrew text contradicts the Acts
account as to the number of Jacob's family that traveled down to Egypt
during the severe famine, the Hebrew text is corrupt here (and at Deu.10:22
as well as Exo.1:5 as they also record "70") and must be corrected by the
LXX to bring the count into agreement.
Here is a straightforward example of scholars' placing the Septuagint on a
level equal to, yes – at times even above the Hebrew text. But such
recourse is totally unwarranted. All that is required is to begin with
faith in God's many promises that He would preserve His Word – forever!
Then careful prudent examination will expose that there is no real
contradiction at all.
But even a casual reflection on the ramifications involved in accepting the
reading of the LXX in the Acts 7 and Genesis 46 passages under discussion
will disclose the fallacious nature of so doing. Is it really reasonable
or likely that Stephen (having been dragged in before the Sanhedrin by a
mob and now in the middle of a spirit filled address before the very men
who had caused the death of his Lord – while speaking as a Hebrew to the
Hebrews) would have quoted from a GREEK manuscript of Genesis in which five
names had been added in violation of the Hebrew laws governing Scripture
transmission? We trow not! Deuteronomy 4:2, 12;32; Psalm 12:6-7 and
Proverbs 30:6 all declare neither to add nor subtract from God's Word.
Are we to suppose that Stephen is going to "convert" the Sanhedrin who have
already crucified Christ and/or possibly save his own life by quoting to
them from a verse that added five names to the Scriptures which they used
in the synagogue every Sabbath? No small wonder they killed him! They
would have looked upon him as a perverter of Scripture. Such an act is not
that which is recorded in the account. They slew Stephen for confronting
them with the person of the Lord Jesus – that He was Christ indeed and,
rather than receive Him as such, they had murdered Him as their fathers had
done to His predecessors, the prophets (Acts 7:51-53)! They were further
enraged by Stephen's call to repentance and his accusation that they had
broken the Law. Never is there any suggestion whatever that their rage in
any way resulted from consternation over Stephen's having perverted the
Scriptures.
But even more to the point, Joseph wed at age 30 (Gen.41:46). His father,
Jacob, and kindred joined him in Egypt nine years later (after the seven
years of plenty and near the end of the second year of the famine,
Gen.41:53; cp. 45:6). Ephraim and Manasseh were born during the seven
years of plenty (41:50-53). The context of Acts 7:14 is unmistakable – it
refers to Joseph's family that joined him in Egypt at the end of the nine
years, Manasseh being no more than eight years of age. Manifestly, the LXX
that is today extant must have been written after the fact for Manasseh and
Ephraim are far too young to be fathers when Joseph's kindred went down to
him in Egypt – much less grandfathers! The reading in the LXX is grossly
untenable.
The painfully obvious conclusion before us is that, by not grasping the
import of the story before him, the translator of the Septuagint tried to
"correct" what he perceived as a "scribal error" in the Hebrew text. In so
doing, he created one.'
Any quotes by Philo or Josephus outside the Pentateuch would be of great
interest, indeed would almost certainly conclude the argument in favour of
a BC LXX.
Thanks
Matt Bell