Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

Chuck emphasizes that Peter quotes Psalm 16 through the Septuagint and notes the early church used it extensively; what uncomfortable questions does that raise for modern Christians who insist on one “original-language-only” approach, and how might this affect how we evaluate quotations and wording differences in the New Testament?

Another way to ask: Chuck says Peter quotes Psalm 16 from the Septuagint, and the early church used it a lot. What hard questions does that raise for people who insist we must only use the “original language,” and how should we handle wording differences in New Testament quotes?

Direct Answer Chuck’s point raises the uncomfortable reality that the apostles often used a Greek translation (the Septuagint), so an “only the Hebrew wording counts” mindset doesn’t match apostolic practice and should make us more cautious about treating wording differences as errors.

Support from Transcript:

Chuck says Acts 2’s quotation “follows from the Septuagint,” the Greek Old Testament.
He notes it was “used extensively by the early church,” implying this wasn’t a fringe tool but normal.
He states: “often the apostles are quoting from” the Septuagint.
He plans to compare “what it says in the Septuagint version to what he’s saying,” treating the translation as meaningful for interpretation.
He reads Psalm 16 from a Septuagint-based numbering (Psalm 16 as “Septuagint is Psalm 15”), showing real structural differences modern readers must navigate.

Discussion Follow-ups If the apostles used a translation freely, what should that do to our confidence when a New Testament quotation doesn’t match our Old Testament wording exactly? Are we willing to let apostolic usage set the rules?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10