Re: LXX quotations

From: Jim West (
Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 11:42:56 EST

At 11:09 AM 2/11/98 -0500, you wrote:

>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
>hands down.

This is certainly correct.

>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.

Indeed, this is what has been the standard description of the phenomenon for

>Mike Beazley (an uneducated layman)

Hardly! Excellent work.

>Bushey, Hertfordshire, UK


Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT