A Question for Christians

Why did the New Testament authors rely on the Septuagint (LXX), even people like Matthew and Paul who were Jews presumably trained in Hebrew? For example, in Galatians 3:16, Paul is commenting on the passages of Genesis which detail the promises made to Abraham and his progeny (12:7, 13:15, 22:18, 24:7), and he quotes the LXX. According to Paul, since the text says that the promise is made to his 'seed' and not his 'seeds,' this promise is not referring to a group of people but to a particular person, namely Christ. However, this distinction is only plausible if one is relying solely on the LXX, since in Hebrew there is no distinction between the singular 'seed' and the plural 'seeds.' As in the English word 'sheep' the Hebrew word for seed(s) (זרע zera) has one form regardless of grammatical number. Context is the only way to know whether a singular or plural meaning is intended, and the context of the passages (Gen. 13:16, 22:17) seems to be quite clearly referring to a multitude of descendents, namely the whole of the Israelites. It seems that Paul has made an error, an error that one could only make if relying solely on the LXX, which would distinguish between the singular 'seed' (σπέρματί spermati) and the plural 'seeds' (σπέρμασιν spermasin). So how do you resolve such a conundrum? Jews like Rabbi Tovia Singer would invoke it as evidence that Paul, despite his claims to the contrary (Philippians 3:5, Acts 22:3), was not a Pharisee and not a very learned religious Jew.

Scheherazade said:

Why did the New Testament authors rely on the Septuagint (LXX), even people like Matthew and Paul who were Jews presumably trained in Hebrew? For example, in Galatians 3:16, Paul is commenting on the passages of Genesis which detail the promises made to Abraham and his progeny (12:7, 13:15, 22:18, 24:7), and he quotes the LXX. According to Paul, since the text says that the promise is made to his 'seed' and not his 'seeds,' this promise is not referring to a group of people but to a particular person, namely Christ. However, this distinction is only plausible if one is relying solely on the LXX, since in Hebrew there is no distinction between the singular 'seed' and the plural 'seeds.' As in the English word 'sheep' the Hebrew word for seed(s) ([זרע] zera) has one form regardless of grammatical number. Context is the only way to know whether a singular or plural meaning is intended, and the context of the passages (Gen. 13:16, 22:17) seems to be quite clearly referring to a multitude of descendents, namely the whole of the Israelites. It seems that Paul has made an error, an error that one could only make if relying solely on the LXX, which would distinguish between the singular 'seed' (σπέρματί spermati) and the plural 'seeds' (σπέρμασιν spermasin). So how do you resolve such a conundrum? Jews like Rabbi Tovia Singer would invoke it as evidence that Paul, despite his claims to the contrary (Philippians 3:5, Acts 22:3), was not a Pharisee and not a very learned religious Jew.

Click to expand...

Let, me frame your whole question into a proper context of what you are seeing. I have to say its actually incredibly intelligent and very smart obviously so its difficult to answer smart folk any other way.

In the statue "Lovers slumber" below why was the this particular stone selected by the creator of all particular kinds? In closer analysis of this creators work we must ask why because we can see in other works over here that a totally different stone has been selected.

Next we must ask as to the contradiction that we have between one hand the other in scale as well as the feet. This contradicts the body of the scuplture. Now further more we have the theme woman and sleeping man. And we can see that shes very happy and so is he. We can only conclude there is a great love possibly lovers very close in age. Late 20s or so. Further more to critique the work we see the robes she wears are massive yet factually that the robes really dont look like that.

I can way further if you want and we can continue talking about this statue!?? Completely intellectually informed very smartly.

I don't a difference.

Abraham being the Father of all 12 tribes of Israel. His seed is the entire 12 tribes. Doesn't matter if you say seed or seeds. Paul referring to a particular seed in Christ does makes sense though. But that doesn't mean that Abraham's sole duty was to eventually bring about Christ, even though it was one of his purposes.

Scheherazade said:

Why did the New Testament authors rely on the Septuagint (LXX), even people like Matthew and Paul who were Jews presumably trained in Hebrew? For example, in Galatians 3:16, Paul is commenting on the passages of Genesis which detail the promises made to Abraham and his progeny (12:7, 13:15, 22:18, 24:7), and he quotes the LXX. According to Paul, since the text says that the promise is made to his 'seed' and not his 'seeds,' this promise is not referring to a group of people but to a particular person, namely Christ. However, this distinction is only plausible if one is relying solely on the LXX, since in Hebrew there is no distinction between the singular 'seed' and the plural 'seeds.' As in the English word 'sheep' the Hebrew word for seed(s) ([זרע] zera) has one form regardless of grammatical number. Context is the only way to know whether a singular or plural meaning is intended, and the context of the passages (Gen. 13:16, 22:17) seems to be quite clearly referring to a multitude of descendents, namely the whole of the Israelites. It seems that Paul has made an error, an error that one could only make if relying solely on the LXX, which would distinguish between the singular 'seed' (σπέρματί spermati) and the plural 'seeds' (σπέρμασιν spermasin). So how do you resolve such a conundrum? Jews like Rabbi Tovia Singer would invoke it as evidence that Paul, despite his claims to the contrary (Philippians 3:5, Acts 22:3), was not a Pharisee and not a very learned religious Jew.

Click to expand...

The Septuagint was basically what was used in the Synagogues. The Septuagint was translated by Jewish translators--either 70 or 72 from all tribes. It is believed that more people read/understood Greek than Hebrew. So Paul wouldn't have made an error as he was quoting from Jewish scholars' translation.

As you mentioned, seed can be singular or plural so context would be the determinant. There are places where it is recognized that the biblical context points to an individual, so in Gn. 4:25 another seed is Seth, in Gn. 21:12, 13 Abraham’s ‘seed’ is respectively Isaac and Ishmael.

The understanding was that "seed" singular was the proper understanding in that singular application because it was the very Jews who translated it into Greek. Since Paul was taught under Gamaliel, I would defer to his understanding rather than today's opinions.

To say he wasn't a Pharisee, would be purely conjectural.

Scheherazade said:

Why did the New Testament authors rely on the Septuagint (LXX), even people like Matthew and Paul who were Jews presumably trained in Hebrew?

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I am not an English-language New Testament scholar, much less a Greek New Testament scholar specializing in textual criticism. In fact, I know of no member of this forum who has the academic background and training needed to answer your question above; if there is such a member, I'd be interested in knowing who he or she is.

As for your concern with Rabbi Tovia Singer's possible or actual pejorative opinion of Paul, I am reminded of the following:

• Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 105a, "The ministering Angels exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! If David comes, who slew the Philistine and gave possession of Gath to thy children. [and complains at Thy giving a share in the world to come to Doeg and Ahitophel], what wilt thou do with him?' He replied, 'It is My duty to make them friends with each other.'"

To clarify the relevance of that quotation from the Babylonian Talmud, I paraphrase it as follows: "The ministering Angels exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! If Tovia Singer comes ... [and complains at Thy giving a share in the world to come to Saul of Tarsus], what wilt thou do with him?' He replied, 'It is My duty to make them friends with each other.'"

To your second question,

Scheherazade said:

So how do you resolve such a conundrum?

Click to expand...

, responding as a Gentile Believer in the Holy One's promise to Abraham regarding the blessings to be bestowed on Gentiles entitled to said blessings, I am not troubled by the conundrum which you see, and I'd be very surprised to discover that many living, Gentile Believers are interested in it.

All the foregoing aside, your initial question has piqued my curiosity and sent me off on an exploratory adventure, focusing on those portions of the Tanakh which are used in the Greek New Testament. I begin with https://www.google.com/search?newwi...UFuZ4KHTJcBksQ1QIoAHoECAoQAQ&biw=1760&bih=840
The first item I looked at was this: Does the New Testament always quote from the Septuagint?

Does the New Testament always quote from the Septuagint?
Apr16 by Stephen Cook
“It is written” – Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament (3)

I wrote earlier that ‘there is a popular misconception that the earliest Christians used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as their Scriptures, and that all the quotations from the ‘Old Testament’ in the New Testament are from this Greek translation, commonly known as “The Septuagint”.’ Before moving on to look at some New Testament quotes that are likely to be direct translations from a Hebrew manuscript I’d like to comment further about the use of the “Septuagint”. I put “Septuagint” in quotation marks because this term is somewhat of a misnomer because there are in fact several quite different Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible which are all identified as “Septuagint”. It would be more accurate to label these texts as “Septuagints” (plural), as many scholars do, rather than identifying any one text as “the Septuagint”. This multiplicity of Greek translations may account for why the New Testament quotations differ quite markedly from the popular Septuagint texts (such as the translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton: The Septuagint version of the Old Testament, according to the Vatican text: translated into English; with the principal various readings of the Alexandrine copy, and a table of comparative chronology, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.)

But the differences between the New Testament quotations and the Septuagints could be explained on other grounds as well. The NT writer may have been making his own translation of a Hebrew text (or an Aramaic translation – a targum – for that matter), quoting or paraphrasing from memory, or making a deliberate change for his own theological reasons. I’d like to explore these possibilities with a few examples.

Scheherazade said:

... However, this distinction is only plausible if one is relying solely on the LXX, since in Hebrew there is no distinction between the singular 'seed' and the plural 'seeds.' As in the English word 'sheep' the Hebrew word for seed(s) (זרע zera) has one form regardless of grammatical number. Context is the only way to know whether a singular or plural meaning is intended, and the context of the passages (Gen. 13:16, 22:17) ...

Click to expand...

I think it is not true that the “seed” is only possible, if one uses the LXX. The word “seed” means offspring in the context. So, the logical word is “seed”, not “seeds”.

Let me answer your question with a symmetrical one. When angels interpreted the grand vision the prophet Daniel beheld in Daniel 7, why did they consistently interpret the Son of Man as the plural people of God? The vision clearly states, in verses 13 and 14, that a single person approached the Ancient of Days riding upon the clouds, and that HE was given glorious things. Yet, when angels interpret the vision to the prophet they refer to the singular Son of Man in the plural. See verses 18, 22 (where the prophet receives this plural interpretation as his own), and 27. Even more fun is found in verse 27, which completes the single-plural-plural-single chaism by reverting back to the singular!
The key scriptural concept of singular/plural applies to more than semantics about words like 'seed'. After all, we Christians believe the Lord Who is One is a Triune God of Three in One. Consider Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the great statue. It refers to four kingdoms (a great, complex expanse of people and customs with a communal history), yet, in his interpretation, Daniel said Nebuchadnezzar himself was the personification of the head of gold. (Once again, it's the interpretation that switches the single/plural focus. The vision is not complete without the interpretation. Therefore, the single/plural concept is the core truth being expressed.)
The whole race was in Adam when he sinned in the garden and when the Lord pronounced judgment over him. You and I were in him when he sinned and with him when he was judged. Therefore, we still eke out an existence by the sweat of our brows - before we return to the dust.
The writer of Hebrews tells us Levi paid the tithe to Melchizedek, because he was in the body of Abraham when Abraham paid it (Heb 7:10).
The lovely promise that the Lord shall "prolong the days" of the suffering servant of Is 53:10 is, on one level, referring to his extension through his seed. He'll be in them and expressed through them even as they were in him. Yet, of course, we Christians believe His days, personally, were truly extended - forever and ever!

Scheherazade said:

....in Hebrew there is no distinction between the singular 'seed' and the plural 'seeds.' As in the English word 'sheep' the Hebrew word for seed(s) (זרע zera) has one form regardless of grammatical number. Context is the only way to know whether a singular or plural meaning is intended, and the context of the passages (Gen. 13:16, 22:17) seems to be quite clearly referring to a multitude of descendents, ...

Click to expand...

I think your interpretation is wrong and it is about “seed”, not “seeds”. Context doesn’t really give enough reason to understand it as “seeds” and not “seed”. More likely the seed would mean Isaac than the whole nation of Israel.