Topic: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

[Alfred Persson]

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,



In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

The people rebelled against God and Moses, dismissing even their rescue from Egypt. At first read it seem Aaron joined them, but it is clear from vvs 4-6 that he did not, rather he sought to turn them back to God and Moses, by making an image of YHWH. This interpretation is confirmed in the NT by Paul who expands this event to encompass all idolatry:


1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, "Rise up and make us gods that shall go before us. As for Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.
2. Aaron then said to them, "Remove the golden earrings in the ears of your wives and daughters and bring them to me."
3. So all the people removed the golden earrings in their ears, and brought them to Aaron.
4.He received them from their hands; and he fashioned them win an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
5. So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. Aaron then made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord."
6. Thus he rose early the next day and offered whole burnt offerings and peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
7. But the Lord said to Moses, "God quickly! Get down from here! For your people whom you brought  out of the land of Egypt are transgressing the law.
8. They turned aside quickly from the way I commanded them. They made themselves a calf and are worshiping and sacrificing to it, and are saying, 'These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt.'-Orthodox Study Bible

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
 (Rom 1:20-23 NKJ)


Therefore the LXX cannot be inspired translation, if it were it would have used the singular THEOS in these verses.

While many versions also translate it as plural, the following render it "God" singular: the New King James, Bible in Basic English, Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish Publication Society Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Darby Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard, New International Reader's Version, New Jerusalem Bible, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (all italics).

[Fr. George]

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

[Alfred Persson]

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.

[Anastasios]

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

[Alfred Persson]

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."

The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11; "Cattles" Job 40:14; Keys, Mt 16:19.

One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.

[Irish Hermit]

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.

[Alfred Persson]

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

[Irish Hermit]

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.

[Irish Hermit]

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old
Testament.

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the
parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in
some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

Nothing could be further from the trurh.

The Septuagint is NOT a Christian translation. It is a Jewish translation.

It became the gift of the Jewish Temple to the Christian Church. The
Christians of the apostolic era received it from the Jews and thereafter
knew no other. It remains the one canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox
Church.

The Septuagint was a translation project approved by the Temple authorities
in the centuries before Christ. Israel provided the best and most learned of
its scholars (said to be 70 in all, hence its name of Septuagint) to
undertake the translation from Hebrew into Greek. Every line was checked
upon translation. Every Jewish scholar working on the translation critically
reviewed everything which some other scholar had translated into Greek.

The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up
until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.
The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books.
It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

It also represents the Temple's deliberate choice of correct verses wherever
there were conflicting variants. As a specific example, the choice of
"virgin-parthenos" in Isaiah was the choice of the Jewish translators.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish
Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the
Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the
Sanhedrin.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Alfred,
 
When it comes to a choice between the Septuagint which was used by the writers of the New Testament and other versions, then I go with the Apostles.  They read the Septuagint, they quoted from it, they used it in their missionary work to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ.   It was because they were so successful with this that the Jews at Jamnia in 90 AD forbade the use of the Septuagint (their own creation!!)   The early Christian Church did not know any other Old Testament; they knew only the Septuagint. 
 
The Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles are sealed with the inspirational mark of the Holy Spirit.  In comparison to this, decisions against the choice of the Spirit made in Western Europe 1600 years later carry no attraction. Attempts, 1600 years after the fact, to displace the Old Testament used by the Apostles and their succesors seem to me like an attack on the work of God.
 
Fr Ambrose

[Jetavan]

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

[Benjamin the Red]

Here's some legwork as far as original sources and translations are concerned.

Exodus 32:4

καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου Ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
(Septuagint)

וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַֽיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
(Masoretic Text)

And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(King James Version)

He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."
(New American Standard Bible)

He received them from their hand; and he fashioned them with an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "There are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
(St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint)

[Shanghaiski]

The whole argument for the inspiration of one, singular text and version of that text is a moot point. It doesn't matter it it's the Septuagint, the pre-Masoretic, or the New Testament, there is no one version  of either in the original manuscript form. What we have today is a compilation. The ancient manuscripts were written at various places and times by several authors. The oldest manuscripts we have are copies and collections of earlier manuscripts.

[Shanghaiski]

It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.

Poor Alfred is a man spiritually deluded, a Church of one, with only his own whim to guide him, thus he results to sniping here and there in an attempt to justify his spiritual insanity. His non-sensical arguments are backed by what he calls evidence, but they are, rather, bits and pieces shaved from their original context and marinated in his own heresy, which denies the true incarnation of the Word of God.

[ialmisry]

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.

Moreover, using 85% of the time a text which Mr. Persson, two millenia later, says that they didn't believe was inspired. Moreover, since they quote the LXX's changes, that would mean they furthered the corruption. And thereby corrupted the NT, which therefore can't be inspired itself.

Have you been circumcized Mr. Persson?

[ialmisry]

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

You picked one text in the hopes that your prooftexting would not be corrected by context.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

If you could read the Hebrew, you would see that is not likely: the verse has the plural "gods" and also "these" and "they brought."  The plural of majesty usually, with increasing regularity have singular agreement.

The Aramaic Targums have the plural, though Aramaic doesn't have a plural of majesty.
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showtargum.cgi

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible,

So, when did Aaron tell you that? Do you have tea with him regularly?  Joseph Smith experience?

hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.

LOL. So Perssonism does "translate" the Bible to fit its agenda, like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.

[ialmisry]

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."

according to the Spirit guiding them.

The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

move away from the hammer.

If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.

God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here.

[ialmisry]

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

[Alfred Persson]

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

You missed my point. The lxx is translating the Hebrew plural for "gods" with the Greek plural for "gods", so in that sense is literal.

BUT the Hebrew uses the plural "gods" to also refer to the One true God, context alone determines which is meant. The plural is a "plural of majesty" when the Hebrew "gods" refers to "God."

The context of Exodus indicates "gods" is referring to the one true God, the image represented Him, not foreign deities:

They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

NKJ  Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

 2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"
 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD."
 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
 (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

No doubt Aaron thought he did good, stopped the rebellion, and restored both Moses and God to authority.

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

 7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'"
 (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)


So the Hebrew and Greek lxx read the same, but shouldn't. If it was inspired the lxx should read as the NKJ translates, rendering "gods" as "god" so readers would have a clearer sense of what is happening.

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

[Alfred Persson]

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

##

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT), not "her husband's brother"

asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)

 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

##

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)


##

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)

[bogdan]

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

[Alfred Persson]

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.

[Alfred Persson]

nt

[Cymbyz]

Actually, I think vowel-pointing hadn't been invented when Christ was on Earth, and it certainly wouldn't have appeared in any of the scrolls available to Him.  OTOH, Greek did have accent marks and the iota subscript, rather a bit more than the marks one finds on a traditional Hebrew text of the first century.

[jnorm888]

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.








ICXC NIKA

[Alfred Persson]

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

[jnorm888]

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?







ICXC NIKA

[Melodist]

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

You said it.

Just to be sure...

Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Acts 13:14-15
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 17:1-2
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:16-17
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Acts 18:1,4
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

The synagogue in Ephesus is mentioned multiple times between Chapters 18 and 19 in Acts.

These greek speaking synagogues would have used greek for their Scripture. Paul used their Scripture when at a synagogue.

[theistgal]

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

[Melodist]

One more thing.

2Tim 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul told Timothy that the Scripture he read as a child were inspired of God.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Which would have been greek.

There you have it, proven from the NT, the LXX is divinely inspired.

[Melodist]

One more person who quoted from the LXX.

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

[Alfred Persson]

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.

Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

[ialmisry]

Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:

Exodus 33:1 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ λαὸς ὅτι κεχρόνικεν μωυσῆς καταβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους συνέστη ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ ααρων καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν ὁ γὰρ μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ αἰγύπτου οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ
וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי־בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן־הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל־אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה־לָנוּ
אֱלֹהִים
 אֲשֶׁר
 יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי־זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה־הָיָה לֹו׃

"make us gods who will go before us" It is pluarl agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, confomring to the LXX.

32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

32:8 repeats 32:4.

32:11 καὶ ἐδεήθη μωυσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἵνα τί κύριε θυμοῖ ὀργῇ εἰς τὸν λαόν σου οὓς ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐν ἰσχύι μεγάλῃ καὶ ἐν τῷ βραχίονί σου τῷ ὑψηλῷ
וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה

אֱלֹהָיו
  בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֹוצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדֹול וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה׃וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ

"His God, and said "O Lord why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought" It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty, but the presence of "LORD" can by a stretch be said to determine agreement.

32:23 repeats the same as 32:4.

32:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ισραηλ θέσθε ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ῥομφαίαν ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν καὶ διέλθατε καὶ ἀνακάμψατε ἀπὸ πύλης ἐπὶ πύλην διὰ τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ ἀποκτείνατε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἔγγιστα αὐτοῦ
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה־
אָמַר
יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵי
ִישְׂרָאֵל
שִׂימוּ אִישׁ־חַרְבֹּו עַל־יְרֵכֹו עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ־אֶת־אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קְרֹבֹו׃

"says the LORD the God..." repeats the same 32:11

32:31 ὑπέστρεψεν δὲ μωυσῆς πρὸς κύριον καὶ εἶπεν δέομαι κύριε ἡμάρτηκεν ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς θεοὺς χρυσοῦς
וַיָּשָׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם
 אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב
"god of gold." It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX

Before chapter 32, in 29:46 καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐπικληθῆναι αὐτοῖς καὶ θεὸς εἶναι αὐτῶν
ls)
וְיָדְעוּ כִּי
 אֲנִי
 יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵיהֶם
 אֲשֶׁר
 הֹוצֵאתִי
 אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם
 לְשָׁכְנִי
 בְתֹוכָם
 אֲנִי יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵיהֶם׃

"I am the LORD their God who brought them out of Egypt that I may dwell among them I am the LORD their God. repeats the grammar of 32:11.

But in 34:14 οὐ γὰρ μὴ προσκυνήσητε θεῷ ἑτέρῳ ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ζηλωτὸν ὄνομα θεὸς ζηλωτής ἐστιν
כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה
 לְאֵל אַחֵר
 כִּי יְהוָה קַנָּא שְׁמֹו
 אֵל קַנָּא הוּא׃
"another god, for the LORD is a jealous God." Singular throughout in the Hebrew, conforming to the LXX

And in 24:10 καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ἐκεῖ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ισραηλ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔργον πλίνθου σαπφείρου καὶ ὥσπερ εἶδος στερεώματος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῇ καθαριότητι
וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת
 אֱלֹהֵי
 יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת
 רַגְלָיו
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃
"They saw (!) the God of Israel and under His feet..." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty

24:11 καὶ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ ισραηλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἷς καὶ ὤφθησαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον
וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא
 שָׁלַח יָדֹו
וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת־
הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ׃
"He did not stretch His hand...and they saw God (!)." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty.

we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.

move away from the hammer.

[Alfred Persson]

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.

God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

[Alfred Persson]

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?


ICXC NIKA

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

[Alfred Persson]

If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."

according to the Spirit guiding them.

The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

move away from the hammer.

If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.

God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here.

Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.

[theistgal]

Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?

[Melodist]

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".

[ialmisry]

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth,

Physician, heal thyself.

declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.

Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject

Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6

That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Then stop trying to sneak in the old leaven of the Pharisees, and taking out the Anagignoskomena of Christ's canon.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. Rev.22:18-9.

[ialmisry]

Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.

Yes, I know Hebrew. Do you? As shown in the post above

Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.
But since there's a commercial:

it seems not.

[ialmisry]

Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?

That the two are connected seems to be gnawing at him, though he tried to evade it in the other thread.

[LBK]

Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.

Complete nonsense. Plural of majesty is found in a large number of languages, including ancient and modern forms of Greek. To say that it does not, or did not exist, in pre-modern forms of Greek is laughable. Even modern, vernacular Greek retains the formal plural.

Modern English is very much in a minority in that it has got rid of its formal plural, though it did exist in earlier forms of the language.

BTW, phenomena is the plural of phenomenon. With all the grand pronouncements about your great knowledge you've made here over a number of threads, grammatical sloppiness is not a good look. Coupled with your persistent evasion of answering simple questions, dodging the topics at hand, and comprehensively ignoring the wealth of scriptural, historical, liturgical and practical evidence brought against your mistaken assertions, it only serves to shred your credibility further among us here.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

[ialmisry]

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.

God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.