Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 11:09:33 EST
Following the recent discussion about whether NT quotations are from the MT or
LXX, I have done a bit of private study, and make my first venture into the b-
greek arena on the strength of it, having sat in the shadows of the digest for
I have compared all the quotations annotated as such in the UBS 4th edition in
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and John's letters with their MT and LXX
counterparts. The results are as follows.
45% of OT passages in the NT are quoted accurately (>90% textual agreement)
from either the MT or the LXX. 31% could be from either because of the close
agreement between the two. In the 15% of cases where the MT and LXX differ
significantly, 8% of quotations are in agreement with LXX and 7% with MT.
33% of OT passages in the NT are quoted relatively accurately (>75% textual
agreement with MT/LXX), and in none of these cases is it possible to be
definite about which was the source.
22% of what the UBS 4th edition calls quotes have <75% textual agreement with
either/both the MT/LXX. In most cases these appear to be paraphrases rather
than quotations, although they could be quotations from another source.
By author: Matthew seems to favour the MT slightly, Mark the LXX, Luke the MT
for his gospel but the LXX for Acts (Paul's influence?), and John the MT. I
have a feeling that if I had had time to include Paul's letters, LXX would win
My most definite conclusion is that in very few of the OT passages quoted in
the NT (which I have covered) are there marked differences between the MT and
the LXX. Exceptions are Mt 13:14-15, Mk 4:12, Lk 8:10, Jn 12:40 and Ac
28:26-27 (all Is 6:9-10), Mt 21:16 (Ps 8:1-2), Jn 19:37 (Zch 12:10) and Ac
8:32-33 (Is 53:7-8).
I hope that this confirms others' findings and that it is of interest.
hH AGAPH MOU META PANTWN hUMWN EN XRISTW IHSOU
Mike Beazley (an uneducated layman)
Bushey, Hertfordshire, UK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT