Influence of LXX on Greek NT

For some time now I have been compiling what I hope will some day become an exhaustive list showing the influence of the Septuagint on the Greek New Testament. (Click link for PDF, 17 pages; it is a new document that I have uploaded to my static site.) I have collected these under four categories of influence: (a) spelling, (b) vocabulary, (c) syntax, and (d) Scripture quotations.

The third category is also referred to as "Septuagintisms." At one time, they were called "Hebraisms" or "Semitisms," on the assumption that many portions of the NT were actually translations of a text originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, the general consensus of NT scholarship is that, aside from some of the sayings of Jesus, none of the actual texts or books of the NT was composed in a Semitic language. There is therefore a great reluctance to speak of "Semitisms" in the NT any more; any traces of Semitic influence on the syntax of the Greek NT are now best viewed as "Septuagintisms." In other words, the Semitic syntax has been mediated by the Septuagint which often translates the Hebrew quite literally and thus preserves the Hebraic flavor of the original. 

The second area -- vocabulary -- is perhaps even more important than syntax, and is of special interest not only to philologists but also to biblical theologians. Not a few of the theologically important words of the Greek New Testament are best understood in light of their Old Testament context and allusiveness as mediated by the Septuagint. Many of these theologically important terms in the New Testament  have nuances that differ slightly from their secular usage in extra-biblical Greek, whether classical Greek, literary Koine, or the papyri. Adolf Deissmann rightly refuted the notion prevalent in his day that the New Testament is written in a special "New Testament Greek" that differed substantially from standard Koine Greek. Nevertheless, Deissmann's emphasis on the papyri as the primary context for NT lexicography led to a reduced awareness of the strong influence of the Septuagint. As the late C. F. D. Moule said:

The pendulum has swung rather too far in the direction of equating Biblical with ‘secular’ Greek; and we must not allow these fascinating discoveries [the papyri] to blind us to the fact that Biblical Greek still does retain certain peculiarities, due in part to Semitic influence … and in part to the moulding influence of the Christian experience, which did in some measure create an idiom and a vocabulary of its own.

Septuagint scholar Sidney Jellicoe made a similar comment:

On the whole, [Deissmann] laid a sound foundation, but with the enthusiasm of the pioneer he looked to the papyri as the source of light, and took too little account of the richer content with which the LXX translators invested their Greek terms, a stage which must be interposed between the papyri and the New Testament for a right understanding of the vocabulary of the latter ... It is primarily to the Greek Old Testament that we should look, rather than directly to the papyri, for the theological significance of the terminology of the New.

[For references, see my paper, p. 1.]

Some theological implications of the above include the following:

• The οίκος formula and the debate over infant baptism
• Meaning of "righteousness" in the NT (is the Hebraic background of δικαιοσυνη more relational or forensic? I would argue forensic)
• Translation of ἀρσενοκοιται in 1 Cor 6:9 (NASB's "homosexuals" is totally misleading)
• Interpretation of "blessed are the poor" (is πτωχος an economic or a spiritual term?)
• Debate whether διαθηκη means covenant or testament
• Kline's interpretation of Luke 22:29, which uses the LXX verb "to make a covenant" (διατιθημι)
• Interpretation of "the βασιλεια (kingdom or reign) of God"
• And much, much more

Comments

[Steve Rives]

To consider this as valid, I would want to see the supposed LXX mss (noting their dates) on a book by book basis (e.g., Isaiah as used in Romans), then compare that to the non-LXX Greek OT texts of the same book, and see if there is a reverse influence from the NT to the Greek OT.

[Lee]

Steve, could you clarify what the antecedent of "this" is? "To consider this as valid..." Which one of the four areas of influence are you referring to (spelling, vocabulary, syntax, quotations)?

[Steve Rives]

Lee, "This" = all four area, because I am not sure what it is you mean by LXX. Understand this, I know the idea of the LXX, but what it is exactly? For each OT book, what are you calling the LXX, and where is the LXX to be found? I know of manuscripts, but I don't know of a single thing called the LXX. Did Paul ever even use the word Septuagint?

And, is it possible that the Greek OT mss we have that we call LXX were affected by the NT texts? Did Christians keep the LXX mss and then the flow of influence went the other direction (i.e., they sometimes brought OT mss into conformity to the NT usage). This may be determined if an investigation was made between the "LXX" of Origen and the other columns.

For these reasons alone (and others, besides), I think more has to be demonstrated before such a large thesis can be accepted. Much more.

[Lee]

Steve,

(1) In response to the question of epistemology -- where is the "Septuagint" to be found? -- I agree that no single manuscript equals the LXX as it left the hands of the translators (a process that occurred over several centuries, beginning with the Torah in the 3rd century and then various books translated by various translators after that). But the same epistemological issue confronts us when we ask "where is the Greek NT?" or "where is the Masoretic text?" Of course, we can't answer these questions with 100% certainty. All we have are manuscripts. All we have is the best attempt that we can reconstruct with reasonable certainty based on the principles of textual criticism. The Göttingen Septuagint is the best that we have now, but it is incomplete. The next best is Rahlfs. But neither one can be pointed to as a perfect reproduction of the original. Yes, we should be critical and not accept every reading in a critical edition of the LXX as necessarily valid, but that does not mean we should be totally skeptical. With regard to the issue of LXX influence on the NT in the areas of spelling, vocabulary, and syntax, there is even less need for skepticism, since the case does not rest on any single verse but on scores of passages that demonstrate a larger pattern that influenced the NT authors.

(2) With regard to the possibility of reverse influence, wherein Christian scribes brought LXX mss into conformity with the NT (or with a manuscript of the NT accessible to them), yes, this has happened here and there, but mostly with places where the NT quotes the OT. This objection is largely irrelevant to the other three areas of influence (spelling, vocabulary, and syntax), which are holistic patterns and tendencies throughout the LXX or in certain portions of the LXX. But even with the Scripture quotations, the scribal influence of the NT on the LXX is not that hard to detect, since we have hundreds if not thousands of LXX mss to cross-check. Further, there are numerous interesting cases where the NT quotation differs somewhat from the LXX (as it has come down to us), indicating that on the whole scribes were conservative (e.g., see my paper on Matt 12:17-21 http://www.upper-register.com/papers/matt12_isa42.pdf).

[Steve Rives]

Thanks Lee.

Off subject: An unexpected first from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that you might be interested in: Note, KP is required! http://mrrives.com/Gezer/

Steve