LXX (Hebrews 11:21)(SteveCR/F.Till)
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:31:58 +0100 (00893705518, 19980427143344218.AAA1135@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> STEVE CR (27/4)
> Now I really am confused. The LXX Pentateuch existed BC? It was a Greek
> translation of the OT Pentateuch?
>
> MATT BELL
> The Rylands Papyrus #458, Aristobulos comments, Letter of Aristeas,
> comments of Josephus, all bear witness to a Greek translation of the Law.
>
> STEVE CR
> 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*... "
>
> MATT BELL (27/4)
> In Genesis 47:31 it says,
>
> 'And he (Israel) said, Swear unto me. And he (Joseph) sware unto him. And
> Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.'
>
> In Hebrews 11:21 we read,
>
> 'By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and
> worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.'
>
> Since Jacob did not bless the sons of Joseph until chapter 48 are you
> saying that the writer of the Hebrews didn't record things
chronologically?
> Or are they two different events, which would explain why, '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*... "
> By the way I am aware that bed and staff are the same Hebrew letter
> differentiated only by the vowel points.
>
> STEVE CR (27/4)
> 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)?
>
> MATT BELL
> [snip more of same 'the LXX copied from the NT' argument]
>
> Whichever one is correct the Hebrews 11:21 verse does not establish
> anything more than what is already accepted, a BC Greek Pentateuch.
>
> STEVE CR (later on the 27/4)
> So why press on and demonstrate the existence of a BC LXX complete OT?
>
> We have demonstrated that a BC Pentateuchal LXX existed. We have
> demonstrated where the NT quoted from this document. But this is
> insuffucient for you. Why would demonstrating that every single book of
the
> OT and every single chapter of every single book of the OT was translated
> into Greek make any difference?
MATT BELL
Why? Because the intial claim made by Helen Willis was:
'Second, the KJV that was authorized included the Apocryphal book, so do
you feel it should be part of the modern Bible? All version of the
Septuagint contained these books. The New Testament quotes the
Septuagint, exclusively and refers to it as the scriptures. The church
father quote these books and the Septuagint and call both scripture. How
do you justify using the Hebrew texts as source for the Old Testament
and not treating the Apocryphal texts as scripture? Why do you think
that the Church of England which caused the KJV translation and the
authorized it has never claimed anything closed to inerrancy for this
translation?'
If a BC LXX, complete with Apocrypha cannot be established, and I believe
that it will be a far more difficult task to establish a BC Apocryphal LXX
than it is being to establish just a BC LXX, then Helen's assertions above
are shown to be erroneous.
Thanks
Matt Bell