O.T. quotes in the N.T.

[Andrew]

This is my seventh example. In this example I provide an English translation under the Greek texts.


1 Corinthians 2:9
ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν
What no eye has seen, nor ear heard

καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη
nor the heart of man imagined

ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν
what God has prepared for those who love him
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 56:4 (LXX)
ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
From of old we have not heard

οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ
neither have our eyes seen any God besides you

καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον
and your works which you shall do for those who wait for your mercy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the English translations of both Greek texts.

N.T.
What no eye has seen, nor ear heard
nor the heart of man imagined
what God has prepared for those who love him

LXX
From of old we have not heard
neither have our eyes seen any God but you
and your works which you shall do for those who wait for your mercy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paul's Greek text is very different from and the text of LXX.

I have highlighted four places where the texts more or less match.

(1) Both use the negative adverb οὐ (or οὐκ or οὐχ).

(2) Paul uses the singular form of the word ὀφθαλμός (i.e. eye) while the LXX use the plural form plus the article (i.e. οἱ ὀφθαλμοί).

(3) Paul uses the singular form of the verb (i.e. εἶδεν) while the LXX uses the plural form of the verb (i.e. εἶδον).

(4) Paul use the 3rd person singular (i.e. it) form of the verb (i.e. ἤκουσεν) while the LXX uses the 1st person plural (i.e. they) form of the verb (i.e. ἠκούσαμεν).

(5) The object of the verbs are different. The object of the verb in the LXX is God himself (i.e. "nor have our eyes seen any God besides you"). The object of the verb in Paul's text is not God himself but rather what God "has prepared for those who love him."


It is obvious that Paul is not following the Septuagint.

Yeah the LXX has a lot of mistakes but not near as many as the Masoretic.

 

[Origen]

Yeah the LXX has a lot of mistakes but not near as many as the Masoretic.

So tell me EXACTLY how many are there? What is the exact count? List them all for me so that I may check to see if your claim is true. Provide the Greek and Hebrew texts side by side so that I may examine them.

 

[Andrew]

So tell me EXACTLY how many are there? What is the exact count? List them all for me so that I may check to see if your claim is true. Provide the Greek and Hebrew texts side by side so that I may examine them.

You will say that the Hebrew is firm and the Septuagint comes in varieties, even the authors of the Gospels don't always agree with each other at times.. the commonalities are whats important.

The majority of quotes from the Hebrew are grossly distorted, often missing the point of the context entirely, but what's the use, i'll provide an example and you will provide greek and hebrew textual word wizardry and point out some tiny little insignificant detail and call checkmate.

My english Bible shows Jesus and the Apostles quoting the LXX more accurately then what I read in the english translation of the OT, which makes perfect sense since our NT weighs heavy with greek overtones and influence apart from it being mostly composed from greek manuscripts, "Christ" is a greek word, the early church fathers had greek names, they speak of Jews who had greek names, Paul was hellenized greatly.. being such a strict Jew he sure did use a lot of Greek terminology and phrases and was well learned in Greek poetry and philosophy, he grew up in the heart of hellenized territory in Turkey.
He studied in Jerusalem where the Hebrew language was maintained respectively.. Why was it such a long journey for him just to get a Hebrew education?
??

Christians didn't raid the synagogues for the greek translations, they weren't even allowed in, yet they could quote scripture? Did all Christians pilgrimage to Alexandria to read from the library?
Every church was reading scripture from copies of the greek translations (because they weren't the original).. Yet today they are humiliated and ridiculed in grand retrospect because their Greek translations of scripture contained much "nonsense".

 

[NathanH83]

So tell me EXACTLY how many are there? What is the exact count? List them all for me so that I may check to see if your claim is true. Provide the Greek and Hebrew texts side by side so that I may examine them.

David Bercot gives a number of examples. But you already said you don’t want to listen to him. I’d give you the link. But why bother? You don’t want to hear him.

 

[Origen]

You will say that the Hebrew is firm and the Septuagint comes in varieties, even the authors of the Gospels don't always agree with each other at times.. the commonalities are whats important.

The majority of quotes from the Hebrew are grossly distorted, often missing the point of the context entirely, but what's the use, i'll provide an example and you will provide greek and hebrew textual word wizardry and point out some tiny little insignificant detail and call checkmate.

My english Bible shows Jesus and the Apostles quoting the LXX more accurately then what I read in the english translation of the OT, which makes perfect sense since our NT weighs heavy with greek overtones and influence apart from it being mostly composed from greek manuscripts, "Christ" is a greek word, the early church fathers had greek names, they speak of Jews who had greek names, Paul was hellenized greatly.. being such a strict Jew he sure did use a lot of Greek terminology and phrases and was well learned in Greek poetry and philosophy, he grew up in the heart of hellenized territory in Turkey.
He studied in Jerusalem where the Hebrew language was maintained respectively.. Why was it such a long journey for him just to get a Hebrew education?
??

Christians didn't raid the synagogues for the greek translations, they weren't even allowed in, yet they could quote scripture? Did all Christians pilgrimage to Alexandria to read from the library?
Every church was reading scripture from copies of the greek translations (because they weren't the original).. Yet today they are humiliated and ridiculed in grand retrospect because their Greek translations of scripture contained much "nonsense".

I asked:

"So tell me EXACTLY how many are there? What is the exact count? List them all for me so that I may check to see if your claim is true. Provide the Greek and Hebrew texts side by side so that I may examine them."

In other words you can't. Thanks.

 

[Origen]

David Bercot gives a number of examples.

That is not even close to what I was asking for.

Moreover I have stated many times that sometimes the N.T. follows the Greek text, sometimes it follows the Hebrew text, and sometime it does not follow either one. This is news to no one.

 

[atpollard]

The MT and the LXX read the same and have exactly the same phrase at the end of the sentence (i.e. "a footstool for your feet") while the N.T. has "under your feet."

Apparently, Jesus is more of an “equivalent thought” than “word for word” translator.

 

[FredVB]

The new testament of the Bible is known to have gone through changes to it. The evidence is good that essential things we need we still have intact in it. The best we can have is comparative studies. And where old testament passages of the Bible are repeated in the new testament of the Bible, we have the old testament passages as they are which we can trust. I think where the name of God originally appeared in those passages that was not immediately edited out, but among the changes the name of God was eliminated from those new testament passages that give the old testament passages that are quoted.

 

[Origen]

I think where the name of God originally appeared in those passages that was not immediately edited out, but among the changes the name of God was eliminated from those new testament passages that give the old testament passages that are quoted.

There is zero Greek N.T. manuscript evidence to support that claim.

 

[FredVB]

There is zero Greek N.T. manuscript evidence to support that claim.

Sure there is N.T. manuscript evidence of changes. Change and addition is found in Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-21, Luke 22:42-43, and 1 John 5:7-8.

 

[Origen]

Sure there is N.T. manuscript evidence of changes. Change and addition is found in Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-21, Luke 22:42-43, and 1 John 5:7-8.

I was specifically addressing your claim concerning the name of God in the N.T.

You stated: "The name of God was eliminated from those new testament passages that give the old testament passages that are quoted."

There is zero Greek N.T. manuscript evidence to support that claim.

 

[FredVB]

I was specifically addressing your claim concerning the name of God in the N.T.

You stated: "The name of God was eliminated from those new testament passages that give the old testament passages that are quoted."

There is zero Greek N.T. manuscript evidence to support that claim.

There is zero Greek new testament manuscript evidence that would support you claiming it was not eliminated, which if was not ever there, there is no reason to trust the old testament of the Bible, where it is in the passages quoted. That would undermine all the Bible, for from the beginning the old testament of the Bible is the basis of the new testament of the Bible. Jesus Christ did not excuse the disregard of any of it for traditions of men. What changed from the old testament that was of God was the effective sacrifice was shown to be only Christ, with the only effective priesthood for that in him, and with the only way to be clean in the way it mattered in him. That does not change the old testament being the revelation from God. Jesus Christ is the further revelation with fulfillments to it.

 

[Origen]

There is zero Greek new testament manuscript evidence that would support you claiming it was not eliminated

You made a claim for which you have zero evidence. It is incumbent upon you to support your claim. Trying to turn the table won't help your claim.

My evidence is the over 5000 Greek manuscripts (whole and fragments), N.T. quotes in the church fathers, and early translations of the Greek N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin). NONE of them support your claim.

 

[FredVB]

You made a claim for which you have zero evidence. It is incumbent upon you to support your claim. Trying to turn the table won't help your claim.

My evidence is the over 5000 Greek manuscripts (whole and fragments), N.T. quotes in the church fathers, and early translations of the Greek N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin). NONE of them support your claim.

To hold to what you claim, I see it would involve ignoring or dismissing God saying God's name was to be remembered always in all generations, WHEN God revealed the name, and also dismissing that Jesus made the name of God known to his followers, John 17:6, and that Jesus did not submit to and approve of nonbiblical tradition displacing anything in Scriptures. It ultimately disregards the old testament as authority which is the Bible. Manuscript evidence, which has differences in a number of cases anyway, is not relevant to changing that. I can think as I may, which is what I stated to start with, as it is my opinion, who are you to disrespectfully try to change it?

 

[Origen]

To hold to what you claim, I see it would involve ignoring or dismissing God saying God's name was to be remembered always in all generations, WHEN God revealed the name, and also dismissing that Jesus made the name of God known to his followers, John 17:6, and that Jesus did not submit to and approve of nonbiblical tradition displacing anything in Scriptures. It ultimately disregards the old testament as authority which is the Bible. Manuscript evidence, which has differences in a number of cases anyway, is not relevant to changing that. I can think as I may, which is what I stated to start with, as it is my opinion, who are you to disrespectfully try to change it?

In other words you have nothing. There is no evidence for your claim, not one Greek manuscript, not one quote in any Church father, NOTHING.

 

[Origen]

This is my eighth example.


Hebrew Text
הַךְ אֶת־הָרֹעֶה וּתְפוּצֶיןָ הַצֹּאן

Zec. 13:7 - LXX
πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα
Strike the shepherds and draw out (remove) the sheep

Matt. 26:31
πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης
I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered

Mark 14:27
πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα καὶ τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται
I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered


(1) All three texts have the same verb (i.e. πατάσσω), but the LXX has a different form of the verb. Matthew and Mark (also note Jesus is the speaker) have the 1st person, singular, future tense form of the verb. The LXX has the 2nd person, plural, aorist, imperative form. The Hebrew verb is also an imperative like the LXX, but it is singular in form.

(2) A significant difference is the noun ποιμήν (= shepherd). The Hebrew, Matthew, and Mark all have the singular form of the noun (i.e shepherd), but the LXX has the plural form (i.e. "Strike the shepherds" not "shepherd" as Jesus said).

(3) There are a number of significant differences between the second verb used in the N.T. and the LXX.
a. Both Matthew and Mark have the same verb (i.e. διασκορπίζω). The LXX uses a completely different verb (i.e. ἐκσπάω).
b. Moreover the two verbs are not synonyms. The verb διασκορπίζω means "to scatter" and matches the Hebrew verb meaning. The verb ἐκσπάω means "to draw out, to remove."
c. Both Matthew and Mark have the verb form 3rd person, plural, future, passive. The LXX verb form is 2nd person, plural, aorist, imperative.

(4) The Hebrew, LXX, and Matthew place τὰ πρόβατα (= the sheep) after the verb while Mark places it before the verb. Also note that "the sheep" is the subject of the verb in the Hebrew, Matthew, and Mark. However in the LXX it is not the subject but the object of the verb.

(5) Only Matthew has the phrase τῆς ποίμνης (= of the flock).

Given the LXX's used of the plural form ποιμένα (= shepherds) rather the singular form ποιμένα (= shepherd), and the fact the LXX uses a completely different verb than Matthew, Mark, and the Hebrew, and Jesus' application of the verse to his personal situation, the Greek of the LXX misses the messianic significance of this verse.

 

[FredVB]

In other words you have nothing. There is no evidence for your claim, not one Greek manuscript, not one quote in any Church father, NOTHING.

The name of God is shown in passages of the old testament, those passages are all over the place. New testament passages include quoted passages from those. Jesus spoke the name of God to his followers. You have no answer to any of the points made. There could have been removal of the name in the earliest copies, the first disciples knew the name of God from Jesus who they followed. You have nothing to show that could not have happened. You definitely do not answer anything to the point that God said for the name of God to always be remembered.

 

[Origen]

The name of God is shown in passages of the old testament, those passages are all over the place. New testament passages include quoted passages from those. Jesus spoke the name of God to his followers. You have no answer to any of the points made. There could have been removal of the name in the earliest copies, the first disciples knew the name of God from Jesus who they followed.

We are talking about Old Testament quotes in the New. Where is the evidence there? No New Testament manuscripts nor any Church fathers support your claim. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, ZERO.

You have nothing to show that could not have happened.

First, you have got to be kidding! That's your evidence! Let me know when you can provide objective evidence.

Second, my evidence is the manuscripts themselves. There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin) ever uses the divine name in the text.

 

[FredVB]

We are talking about Old Testament quotes in the New. Where is the evidence there? No New Testament manuscripts nor any Church fathers support your claim. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, ZERO.

Old testament passages are quoted in the new testament of the Bible. Your position dismisses any authority of God in the old testament, something not done in the new testament of the Bible, which abundantly supports authority of the old testament with referring to it. Old testament passages with authority use the name of God, abundantly. The name of God was revealed to always be remembered. Your position holds that has no authority.

First, you have got to be kidding! That's your evidence! Let me know when you can provide objective evidence.

Again, I said from the beginning this is what I THINK. I don't need evidence to use to change your mind, when I explained what I think, and why. With this I am not going to change my mind. That is none of your business. I feel no need to change your mind about anything. But talking down at any other is really not needed.

I can say there is the evidence for me that is compelling. Jesus spoke with the name of God among his followers, he spoke plenty about not dismissing anything of God's word for traditions of men. There was always respect for old testament passages where referred to in the new testament of the Bible.

Second, my evidence is the manuscripts themselves. There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin) ever uses the divine name in the text.

I never said anything otherwise about that. It is irrelevant to what I point out. No church father has authority that the Bible has with what is said in it. Such others are useful as authority for finding things were there that have changed, which did happen, but that does not mean those things were all the change that ever happened.

 

[Origen]

Old testament passages are quoted in the new testament of the Bible. Your position dismisses any authority of God in the old testament, something not done in the new testament of the Bible, which abundantly supports authority of the old testament with referring to it. Old testament passages with authority use the name of God, abundantly. The name of God was revealed to always be remembered. Your position holds that has no authority.

Again, I said from the beginning this is what I THINK. I don't need evidence to use to change your mind, when I explained what I think, and why. With this I am not going to change my mind. That is none of your business. I feel no need to change your mind about anything. But talking down at any other is really not needed.

I can say there is the evidence for me that is compelling. Jesus spoke with the name of God among his followers, he spoke plenty about not dismissing anything of God's word for traditions of men. There was always respect for old testament passages where referred to in the new testament of the Bible.

I never said anything otherwise about that. It is irrelevant to what I point out. No church father has authority that the Bible has with what is said in it. Such others are useful as authority for finding things were there that have changed, which did happen, but that does not mean those things were all the change that ever happened.

You have zero objective evidence.

There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.