THE SEPTUAGINT:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me
and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation;
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed
when he cometh in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels.
Mark 8:38
1996
5th Edition
Revised
(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
FLOYD JONES MINISTRIES, INC.
8222 Glencliffe Lane
Houston, Texas
The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis. Copyright 1995 Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission.
Published by
Bible For Today Press
900 Park Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE HISTORY OF THE LXX 1
THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX) 1
PROBLEMS AT THE ONSET 2
THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 2
THE TESTIMONY OF THE "STAR WITNESS" – FALLACIOUS! 5
THE SCRIPTURES CONFRONT THE LXX'S "HISTORY" 6
THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSLATION 6
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS 7
DISCORDANT AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LXX 9
DISCORDANT LENGTHS OF KINGS REIGNS IN THE LXX 10
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY BASED ON HEBREW (True) O.T. TEXT 12
CHAPTER SUMMATION 12
II. THE STATUS OF THE LXX 14
THE HEXAPLA AND MESSIANIC PROPHECY 14
OTHER REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 16
THE "BIBLE" OF THE EARLY CHURCH? 16
AN EXTANT PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? 17
WAS THERE ACTUALLY A PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA SEPTUAGINT? 18
IS THE APOCRYPHA THE CLUE TO THE TRUTH REGARDING THE SEPTUAGINT? 20
THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE HEBREW TEXT 21
III. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LXX 24
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT? 24
A. DIRECT HEBREW - LXX COMPARISONS 24
B. IRREFUTABLE INTERNAL EVIDENCE 31
THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT ANALYZED 32
WHY THEN DO CONSERVATIVES UPHOLD THE LXX? 33
A. TO DEFEND "VIRGIN" IN ISAIAH 7:14 34
B. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE O.T. WAS TRANSLATED 35
LXX "PROOF TEXTS" FOUND WANTING 36
THE FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE LXX DEMONSTRATED 37
THREE "PROBLEM" TEXTS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS 38
IV. THE LXX VERSUS GOD'S PROMISE 41
THE BIBLE - A "SACRED" BOOK 41
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES? 42
OVERVIEW 43
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS 44
CONCLUDING REMARKS 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY 51
INDEX 55
ABBREVIATIONS
A Codex Alexandrinus
A.D. Anno Dei (Year of God)
a Codex Sinaiticus - pronounced aleph, the 1st letter in the Hebrew alphabet
AV Authorized King James Version (1611)
B Codex Vaticanus
b. born
B.C. Before Christ
B.F.T. Bible for Today Press
BM British Museum
c. circa - about; approximately
ch.,chs. chapter(s)
cp. compare
D Codex Bezae
d. died
ed., eds. edition(s); editor(s)
e.g. exempli gratia - for example
et al. et alii - and others
etc. et cetera - and so forth
fl. floruit - flourished, used when birth & death dates are not known.
fn. footnote
gen. ed. general editor
i.e. id est - that is
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
KJB/KJ King James Bible (1611)
LXX Septuagint, for the "70" (72) translators
mss Greek ms of New Testament in small cursive letters. Also called "minuscules".
MSS Greek MSS or Codex of the New Testament written in capital letters. Also called "majuscules" and "uncials".
MS/ms A single uncial or cursive manuscript.
MT Masoretic Text, the God given Hebrew Old Testament
NASB New American Standard Version (Bible)
n.d. no date
NIV New International Version
n.p. no place; no publisher
N.T. New Testament
O.T. Old Testament
p., pp. page(s)
q.v. quod vide - which see (that is, see the preceding item)
rev. revision; revised; revised; reviewed by
rpt. reprint; reprinted
[sic] so, thus
TR Textus Receptus - the "Received Text". The Providentially preserved God given Greek N.T. Synonymous, for practical purposes, with "Traditional Text", "Syrian Text", "Byzantine", and "Majority Text" - although this is a simplification.
trans. translated by; translator; translation
T.T. Traditional Text
Vid. supra Vide supra - see above; previous pages or materials in the book one is reading.
viz. videlicet - namely
vol., vols. volume(s)
vs., vv. verse(s)
PREFACE
As in the case of the first writing (Which Version is the Bible?), it was not the author's intent to produce a book or even a manuscript on the subject of the Septuagint. After years of study, materials had been assembled from numerous sources and places. That which began to take shape was a somewhat orderly assimilation of "private notes". These consisted of that which was regarded as the most pertinent information relevant to the question of textual criticism and Bible faithfulness, especially with reference to the role the LXX played in those matters. The only intent was to become better informed.
The next phase consisted of typing the assimilated data into the computer's word processor for permanent storage. This, of course, conferred the ability to add, rearrange, as well as make subsequent referral and retrieval expedient. This was important in order to facilitate locating essential material as, with the passing of time, it becomes easy to forget and/or misplace sources. Eventually, this loose information base evolved into a somewhat organized manuscript.
Discussions on the matter with friends and acquaintances resulted in many of them requesting copies of my material, such as it was, so that they could further reflect on the subject and examine for themselves the resources I had gleaned from and studied. This prompted me to "clean" the notes up and make them a little more presentable (yet remaining in a somewhat unfinished rough form) so that upon request, copies of these personal notes could be sent out directly from the computer. However, it soon became apparent that this would not suffice for the material began to circulate beyond the realm of my familiars and the rather crude incomplete manner with which the footnotes had been left began to become an embarrassment.
Again, as no publication was to be the result of this endeavor, formal documentation with regard to footnotes, references, etc. was not always cited or complete. After all, the research had originally been intended merely for the benefit of the author. Thus, a more vigorous manuscript had suddenly become a necessity. To add to my discomfort, at the time this problem came to my attention I was deeply immersed in the preparation of a second doctoral dissertation and was thus unable to give immediate attention to the "Septuagint papers". Upon completion of the treatise, the author was able to again turn his attention to the LXX and the third edition is the result of that return.
Appreciation by the author is herewith gratefully expressed to the many on both sides of the issue from whom I have gleaned, compiled, and adapted information. The author trusts that if there remains any oversight in the acknowledgment of sources, such will be forgiven and accepted as being neither intentional nor with malice. It is hoped that the unsuspecting church may, in at least some small measure, be alerted by the effort contained herein to that which has been afoot within the camp. For most, the resulting discoveries and conclusion will be startling.
Floyd Nolen Jones
December, 1994
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:17
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God
shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
I. THE HISTORY OF THE LXX
THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX)
The Septuagint (LXX) is a very old translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) into Hellenistic Greek. This statement alone is almost the only hard fact concerning this translation that is truly verifiable.
In perusing the literature, the typical definition offered for the Septuagint is that it was an "authorized" Greek translation of the Old Testament prepared in Alexandria, Egypt around 285-250 B.C. The enterprise is said to have been accomplished by 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus or possibly begun during the reign of his father, Ptolemy Soter.
Very serious and far reaching ramifications immediately follow this seemingly innocuous description – namely, the ensuing assumption (1) and the conclusions that proceed (2 & 3):1
1. There was a complete Greek translation of the Old Testament before the time of Christ Jesus.
2. This was the "Bible" actually used by the Lord Jesus and the Apostles.
3. Since this translation has the books of the Apocrypha interwoven into its fabric, its use by Jesus and the Apostles infers their endorsement of the Apocrypha.
Thus, we see that the issue before us is threefold. First, the paramount question is not whether there was a very old Greek version of the Old Testament, but was it made prior to the time of Christ and the Apostles? Second, even if this should be true, did Christ Jesus and the Apostles actually use and/or quote from the Greek version at times in preference to the Hebrew Bible? Third, the crux of the matter is not whether we have extant ancient Greek witnesses to the Old Testament text, but rather – do they represent an accurate B.C. translation of the original Hebrew text?
In addition, modern scholars inform us that there are three (some say four) families of Old Testament manuscripts. Most believe that all three must be compared in order to arrive at the original text. The three are the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. All text critics feel that the LXX contains readings that have been lost or corrupted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Subsequently, these men hold that the Septuagint may be used in determined places to "correct and restore" these adulterated readings. The late Dr. Ira M. Price is representative with regard to modern scholarship’s position in Old Testament textual criticism when he states:
"... there are extant manuscripts of this version (the Septuagint) much older than any document of Biblical Hebrew that we possess, except a few fragments and the Isaiah scroll; and comparison of the age of the great manuscripts of the two traditions gives an advantage to the Greek of six or, perhaps we should say, of eight centuries. This fact makes the Septuagint of high importance for the study of the early text of the Hebrew Old Testament."
Farther along Dr. Price continues this line of thought:
"Study of the Septuagint and the use of it as a tool for recovery of the original text of the Hebrew Bible have thus taken a great step forward. ... advances in our knowledge of the Septuagint are to be welcomed as important contributions to a better understanding of the Bible.(emphasis added)
These two citations by Price are typical of that which abounds in the literature and serves to illustrate the important position which the LXX has attained in textual critical circles. For example, the prestigious International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia relates that:
"Its (the LXX) chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the MT (Masoretic Text) reproduced in our modern Bibles. ... The main value of the LXX is its witness to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing".2
The alert reader may correctly ascertain from the above quotes that the vast majority of modern academia does not consider the "Hebrew" Bible and the Old Testament portion of our "Holy" Bible to be one and the same entity. Indeed, many laymen as well as numerous pastors may well have been surprised to "learn" that the original text of God’s Word has been lost and was in need of "recovery". Moreover, the last portion of Price's second citation is truth reversed. The Septuagint does not add to our understanding of the Bible. Rather, as the Bible is the only written source of God's revelation to man, it is the "advances in our knowledge" of Scripture that give wisdom and better understanding concerning – not merely the LXX – all written materials, philosophies, etc. But – we wonder – is such veneration of the Septuagint by academia justified? As best we can, we shall examine the evidence to see whether these things be so.
PROBLEMS AT THE ONSET
The history of the origin of the Septuagint is embellished with many diverse fables, hence its actual derivation is still being debated. As to hard provable facts, little is known. To illustrate, as we peruse the "Introduction" of the Zondervan version of the LXX we find:3
"The history of the origin ... embellished with various fables ... Little is known with accuracy on this subject ... we possess no information whatsoever as to the time or place of their execution ... it has recently been inferred (p. i) ... the basis of truth which appears to be under this story seems to be that ... some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews ... the most reasonable conclusion is ..." (p. ii, emphasis added)
Besides these we typically encounter:
"It is a good story – even if it doesn't have a word of truth in it ... it is highly probable ... the Aristeas story is rendered still more dubious by a consideration of the apparent origins ... It has been hotly debated whether or not there was a single original Greek translation ... the Old Testament was not all translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus ... we cannot be sure that it was completed by the beginning of the first century B.C. ... The Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus IMPLIES that the ..."4
THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT
There exist five sources as to the authenticity and origin of a pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures. We shall now call each to step forward to give his testimony in order that we can render an accurate and factual decision.
1. The earliest writer mentioning a Greek Old Testament is Aristobulus, a Jewish priest who wrote a commentary on the Law. Fragments of this have been preserved by Eusebius5 of Caesarea (Praep. Ev., VIII. x and XIII. xii). Aristobulus lived around the beginning of the second century B.C. He records that the Law was translated into Greek from the Hebrew under the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and that one Demetrius Phalereus had been employed in bringing about its production. Eusebius (260-339 A.D.) maintains that Aristobulus was actually one of the "seventy" translators.6 Nevertheless, the eclectic character of the work has made doubtful the authenticity of its authorship.
Indeed, Aristobulus was dependent on Aristeas (see numbered paragraph 2 following) and motivated by the desire to prove that Plato, and even Homer, had borrowed from the Bible.7
2. A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian (Demetrius of Phalerum) to obtain a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem.
The letter of Aristeas is preserved in the highly spurious non-canonical collection of fiction called "The Forgotten Books of Eden."8 This letter is the principal source of information concerning the origin of the Septuagint.
According to this letter, Ptolemy, desiring to collect a copy of "all the books in the world", offered in trade the freedom of 100,000 Jewish captives in exchange for a Greek translation of the Jewish Laws.9 Aristeas claimed to be a Greek court official of Ptolemy's.10 Further, that he was among those sent as an embassy by Demetrius requesting Eleazar, the high priest, to send a company of the best scholars of Israel bearing an official copy of the Law to Alexandria for the purpose of preparing that translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The same story is told with variations by Josephus, but later writers embellish it with miraculous details. After reading through these accounts, one is distinctly left with the impression that, rather than the miraculous, he is enmeshed in legend, fable and myth. For example, some assert that the translators were shut into separate cells and, by divine inspiration, wrote their versions exactly alike, word for word. We scan these later writings and are "informed" that the 72 translators completed the entire undertaking in 72 days, etc.11
Others speculate that the LXX was primarily prepared for the benefit of a large population of Greek-speaking Jews living in and around Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, it is unlikely that in a space of approximately 35 years the Jews of Alexandria would have found such a translation needful or desirable. It is noteworthy that we find no vestige of any versions having been made by the Jews into the languages of other countries – countries in which they had settled for much longer periods than in Alexandria.
3. The third witness most often referred to is that of the prologue of the Apocryphal non-canonical book "Jesus, the Son of Sirach." Purportedly written 130 B.C., this work, is often cited as referring to a Greek version that existed in his day. However, Jesus – "Son of Sirach" – was merely translating his grandfather's work, and this work was not written in Greek but Hebrew.12 What he said was "... the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them."13
It can be seen that the first statement made no reference whatsoever to the Greek language. Furthermore, the second statement says nothing about a translation but refers only to what the Hebrew books said. Jesus, the Son of Sirach, said nothing whatever in the preceding quote about the Law and the Prophecies existing in a Greek Old Testament. Having undertaken to translate his grandfather's work from Hebrew to Greek, he was merely speaking of his own difficulties in translating. Thus Jesus' (the Son of Sirach) citation to the "Law and the Prophecies" had no relation to any Greek Bible.
4. Another name mentioned as having used a B.C. LXX is Philo (c.20 B.C. – c.A.D. 50) of Alexandria. A Jewish Gnostic and philosophical mystic, Philo lived during the reign of Caligula the Roman Emperor. It was the same period in which the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of the Gospel. In his Life of Moses, he states that up unto that time a yearly feast was kept in memory of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two interpreters.14 He also intimates that the interpreters were "inspired", by stating: "They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each".15
Some have suggested that Philo is possibly the author of The letter of Aristeas.16 Even if this were untrue, the possibility exists that Philo's only real knowledge of the Septuagint is the result of his having read Aristeas.17 The fact is that there are no actual quotes contained in his work that are cited from a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
5. Lastly, the Jewish Historian Josephus (A.D. 37-100?) is often cited as having used the Septuagint. However no quotes of his having done so are ever offered to certify such a claim. A member of the Pharisee sect from age 19 until the end of his life, Josephus corroborates the story as related by Aristeas with only slight variations.18 It is generally agreed that almost certainly, he had access to the letter.19 Thus, Josephus is not an actual proven independent source. Moreover, no real evidence exists demonstrating that he ever used or even saw a Septuagint.
Presumably, only the first five books (The Law or the Pentateuch) were initially translated. This is said to be the "original" Septuagint. The remaining books were supposedly translated piecemeal later. Subsequently the name "Septuagint" was extended and expanded to cover all of these translations. Significantly, the apocryphal books are found interspersed throughout the canonical books in the LXX.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE "STAR WITNESS" – FALLACIOUS!
In The Letter to Aristeas, the Egyptian king banqueted the seventy two for seven days. During this interval, he put questions to each of them to supposedly test their proficiency and skill for the task at hand. Extraordinarily, not one question or answer in the entire lengthy dialogue was related to the differences in Greek and Hebrew idioms, verb tenses, writing styles of the various Hebrew authors, or to the divine nature of the Hebrew writings, Scriptural preservation, Biblical translating or Biblical languages. The questions related to such things as politics, military affairs, and kings' reigns – with emphasis on Athenian Greek Philosophy. Yet strangely we read that three days later, Ptolemy II Philadelphus granted them permission to translate the Old Testament into Greek for his library, being somehow assured of their competency in Biblical scholarship. Does this ring likely or logical?
Moreover, Aristeas' letter belongs to the 2nd century B.C.20 That is, it is not authentic – it was written about 150 or more years after the supposed time that the LXX was translated. Further, many hold that the writer of Aristeas was probably not a Gentile, but a Jew. Regardless of nationality, he was deeply enmeshed in pagan Greek philosophy and was certainly not a courtier in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Thus, Aristeas is not who he claims. He is not a first hand witness as we were led to believe by the narrative. The writer has lied to us, and often at that.
Aristeas further blunders in naming Demetrius of Phalerum (c.345 - c.283 B.C.) as a member of the court and keeper of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ (285-247 B.C.) library. The latter part of Demetrius’ life was spent in the court of Ptolemy Soter, not Philadelphus. Moreover, having lost favor with Philadelphus, Demetrius was banished by that monarch. Indeed, he was never the royal librarian.21 The author further indicts himself when just prior to the banquet given in honor of the translators he states: "it happens to be the anniversary of our naval victory over Antigonus."22 This is a major blunder. The writer has either transformed a decisive defeat of the Egyptian navy at the battle of Cos (c.260 B.C.) into a victory or this is a reference to an actual victory at Andros around B.C. 245. Regardless, both of these battles occurred long after the c.283 decease of Demetrius.23
Such historical errors recorded in the Letter of Aristeas disclose the undeniable fact that the work is not of the time period it claims. Moreover, an attempt to enumerate all the many obvious errors and inaccuracies in this work would necessitate going far beyond the scope and intended purpose of the study. Surely enough has already been said to alert the reader as to the true nature of "Aristeas".
The situation before us would be analogous to the author of a novel such as "Gone With the Wind" describing within the story another book as though it had been written several hundred years previously. Would such a statement be esteemed as necessarily factual, scientific, or admissible as legal evidence which would, for example, hold up in a court of Law?
The LXX version itself "speaks" to us and in so doing, bears manifest proof that it was not administered by Jews from Israel. It was generated by Jews, or those acquainted with the Hebrew tongue, who were of Egypt. This is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the presence of many words and conspicuous expressions that are unmistakably Alexandrian.24 This fact alone is sufficient proof that the narrative of Aristeas is mere fiction. Moreover, Melvin K. H. Peters apprises us that the story of the origin of the Septuagint was "exposed as a legend as early as 1705."25
THE SCRIPTURES CONFRONT THE LXX'S "HISTORY"
Further analysis of the narrative reveals obvious confrontation and contradiction with the basic teachings of Scripture. The story relates that six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes, and that these 72 men came down to Alexandria, Egypt and produced the translation. This cannot be true.
"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But you are departed out of the way; you have caused many to stumble at the law; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of Hosts." (Mal. 2:7-
What was the covenant of Levi? It was a contract in which God charged the Levites with the sole responsibility of writing and preserving the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 31:24-25 records:
"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee"
In Israel, only the males of the Tribe of Levi could copy Scripture.26 They and they alone were entrusted as custodians over the Holy Writ. They were selected over all other tribes on the basis of their having chosen to follow Moses and God when the people of Israel broke the covenant of the LORD in the matter of the golden calf idol and the orgy that accompanied its dedication (Exo. 32, esp. vs. 25-29; cp. Num. 3 and 8:5-22).
Actually, in all of Scripture no record exists whereby the Hebrews ever translated their sacred writings into any other language. Nevertheless, we have seen that the Levites were the sole custodians over all the affairs concerning the Writings such that if a translation were indeed required, it would undeniably have been executed by these selfsame men. Thus, there could not have been six men from each of the twelve tribes engaged in such an undertaking as translating the Hebrew sacred writings under the holy sanction of God appointed authorities. The Levites would never have allowed men from the other eleven tribes to go down to Egypt for such a purpose. The high priest, himself a member of the tribe of Levi, would hardly authorize so blasphemous an act.
Who was given authority to copy out the Scriptures? The Levites! Thus, all the scribes in the Bible were from the tribe of Levi. For example, the Book of Ezra records that Ezra was a "ready scribe" and that he was a priest, hence, from the tribe of Levi (Ezra 7:6, 10-11).
Obviously then, God would never inspire such a work as described by Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, etc. for it violates His very instructions as heretofore disclosed. Nor would the priests and Levites select or approve men from the other eleven tribes to translate Scripture. Thus this spurious tale stands exposed as unscriptural and, as such, falls on its face before the fire of God's Word as surely as did the statue of Dagon (I Sam. 5:1-7).
THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSLATION27
The variety of the translators of the LXX is proved by the unequal character of the version. Some books demonstrate that the translators simply were not competent to the task, while others exhibit, on the whole, a careful translation. Moreover, the Greek of the LXX is not straightforward Koine28 Greek. At its most idiomatic, it abounds with Hebraisms; at its worst it is little more than Hebrew in disguise. But with these few reservations, the Pentateuch can be classified as fairly idiomatic and consistent, though there are traces of its being the work of more than one translator.
Outside the Pentateuch some books, it seems, were divided between two translators working simultaneously, while others were translated piecemeal at various times by different men using widely diverse methods and vocabulary. Consequently the style varies from fairly good Koine Greek, as in part of Joshua, to indifferent Greek, as in Chronicles, Psalms, the Minor Prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and parts of Kings. Judges, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, and other parts of Kings are worse – being so rigidly literal and often unintelligible.
Thus the Pentateuch is generally well done, especially as compared to the rest of the books contained within the LXX. Still, it does occasionally paraphrase anthropomorphisms in a manner offensive to Alexandrian Jews, disregards consistency in religious technical terms, and shows its impatience with the repetitive technical descriptions in Exodus by mistakes, abbreviations, and wholesale omissions. Yet comparatively few books in the LXX attain even to the standard of the Pentateuch; most are of medium quality, some are very poor.
The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence".29 As a translation, it is not only bad; it is the most inferior book within the LXX. H.B. Swete concludes that the Psalms are but little better.30 Esther, Job, and Proverbs are not faithful translations but merely free paraphrases. The original LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from Theodotion (see under "Hexapla," p. 15).
Proverbs contains material not present in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was replaced, perhaps within the first century A.D., by a later translation (generally attributed to Theodotion, but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is presently to be found in only two Greek MSS and the Syriac version. One of the translators of the book of Jeremiah sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar meaning.
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS31
That which scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are around 200 fragments of varying sizes. Most are not of great value to the text critic. The more important are listed below. Only one has been assigned a B.C. date; all the others were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
U. in British Museum, (600 - 750 A.D.): containing parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20-34.
X. Freer Greek MS V, Washington, D.C., (probably latter 3rd century): Amos 1:10-Mal.4:6.
905. Oxyrhyncus papyrus 656, Bodleian Library (early 3rd century A.D.): fragments of Genesis.
911. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Greek fol. 66, I, II, (probably 4th cent. A.D.): much of Genesis up to 38:5.
919. Heidelberg LXX Papyrus I, (600 - 700 A.D.): containing parts of Zech. 4:6-Mal. 4:5.
952. British Museum Papyrus 2486, (early 4th century A.D.): Song of Solomon 5:12-6:10.
957. John Rylands Library P. Gr 458, (2nd cent. B.C.): Deu. 23:24-24:3; 25:1-3; 26:12, 17-19, 28:31-33.
961. Chester Beatty P. IV, (4th cent. A.D.): Genesis 9:1-44:22.(badly mutilated).
962. Chester Beatty P. V, (late 3rd cent. A.D.): Gen. 8:13-9:1; 24:13-25:21; 30:24-46:33 (mutilations).
963. Chester Beatty P. VI, (mid 2nd cent. A.D.): portions of Numbers and Deuteronomy.
964. Chester Beatty P. XI, (probably 4th. cent. A.D.): 2 leaves, one incomplete of Ecclesiasticus.
965. Chester Beatty P. VII, (3rd. cent. A.D.): 33 fragmentary leaves of portions of Isaiah.
966. Chester Beatty P. VIII, (end of 2nd cent. A.D.): small fragments of 2 leaves from Jeremiah.
967, 968 Chester Beatty P. XI, X, (late 2nd or 3rd. cent. AD.): 29 imperfect leaves of Ezk., Dan., & Est.
2013. Leipzig Papyrus 39, (late 4th cent.): Psalms.30-55 (first 5 badly mutilated).
2019. British Museum Papyrus 230, (late 3rd century): Psa. 11 (12):7- 14 (15):14.
2055. Societa Italiana 980, (late 3rd or 4th century): Psa. 143 (144):14-148:3.
Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo, (2nd or 1st century B.C.): part of Deu. 31:28-32:7.
Septuagint manuscripts are quite numerous in the world's libraries. The earliest are called uncials (block capital letters with about 12 letters to the line, also referred to as "majuscules" and designated by "MSS") and the later, cursives (lower case flowing script, also called "minuscules" and designated by "mss").
There are about 250 extant uncial manuscripts.32 They contain mainly small portions of the O.T. The most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek O.T. are:
(1) Codex Vaticanus (B),33 c.350 A.D., the Vatican Library.
(2) Codex Alexandrinus (A),34 c.450 A.D., British Museum, (Dr. Price says it follows Origen's Hexapla, Ancestry, p. 59).
(3) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), c.350 A.D., British Museum.
Regarding these three famous manuscripts, D.W. Gooding summarizes: "Even the great uncials B, A, and Aleph35 are not immune from pre-Origen revision [Aleph = a - the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, FNJ]. Vaticanus follows the Hexapla in Isaiah while in Judges it represents a 4th century A.D. revision. Generally, however, it is a copy (a poor one, as its numerous omissions show) of a text critically revised according to the best evidence available early in the Christian era. Hence it sometimes presents a text purer than that of still earlier papyri ... Alexandrinus has suffered far more from revision. Sinaiticus, ... holds a position mid-way between B and A."36
(4) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), 5th century, located at Biblioteque Nationale Paris. Consisting of but sixty-four O.T. leaves, the text has been erased to make room for a treatise for St. Ephriam of Syria in the 12th century. It is thus a "palimpsest" and the underlying Biblical text can be deciphered only with great difficulty.
In addition, there are over 280 known cursive mss of the Greek Old Testament.37 These may be found in the five volume edition of the LXX edited by R. Holmes and J. Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827).
DISCORDANT AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LXX38
One point where the LXX and the Hebrew text differ in the Pentateuch is with regard to the ages of the ante-diluvian patriarchs relevant to the birth of their sons. Six of the first ten of these patriarchs fathered exactly 100 years later in the LXX than in the Hebrew O.T. The total span of these differences is 586 years – the LXX being greater than that of the Hebrew text. The importance of this discrepancy can hardly be overstated as in calculating and reckoning the chronology of the Old Testament, the numbers recorded in Scripture are our only guide. That the variations in the Septuagint are due to contrivance or design, and not due to accident, is plain from the systematic way in which the alterations have been made.
It is simple to demonstrate which list is correct. The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Hebrew reads 187 - Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both), the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and all four of their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge. Discordances of a similar nature and magnitude are found with regard to the Post-diluvian patriarchs except that here the life spans also differ, often by more than 100 years.
The Patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the former desired to lengthen the chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their philosophic concept of gradual and uniform change (pre "uniformitarianism"); a philosophy which embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists. Thus the dramatic life span changes, which manifested the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life due to the worldwide Deluge, were altered to eliminate such positive evidence which was contrary to their religious-philosophic beliefs.
The constructor of the scheme found in the LXX lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood unto Abraham's leaving Haran by 720 years. He also graduates the length of the lives of the Patriarchs throughout the entire register, both those before and after the Flood. The curious result is that with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?
Incidentally, the Samaritan text39 evinces similar signs of tampering. For example the interval from Adam to the Deluge is 349 years shorter (A.M. 1656 MT - 1307 Sam. = 349)40 in this text as compared to the Hebrew and the interval from the Flood to Abraham is longer by 490 years. After analyzing the disparity between these discordant ages of the Patriarchs in both the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch with regard to the Hebrew, C.F. Keil concluded that the Hebrew Text was the only reliable account:
"That the principal divergences of both texts from the Hebrew are intentional changes, based upon chronological theories or cycles, is sufficiently evident from their internal character, viz. from the improbability of the statement, that whereas the average duration of life after the flood was about half the length that it was before, the time of life at which the fathers begot their first-born after the flood was as late and, according to the Samaritan text, generally later than it had been before. No such intention is discernible in the numbers of the Hebrew text: consequently every attack upon the historical character of it numerical statements has entirely failed, and no tenable argument can be adduced against their correctness".41
DISCORDANT LENGTHS OF KINGS REIGNS IN THE LXX42
Significant discrepancies are also found with regard to various lengths of reign of several kings during the period of the divided monarchy. The Greek variants came into being because the translator either failed to understand the meaning of the Hebrew or, as was the usual occurrence, from an effort to "correct" the supposed errors.
Discrepancies between the LXX and the Hebrew Scriptures with regard to the various kings may be readily appraised below:
I KINGS
15:9 Asa
16:8 Elah
16:15 Zimri
16:29 Ahab
22:41 Jehoshaphat
II KINGS
1:17 Joram
8:16 Jehoram
HEBREW TEXT
20th of Jeroboam
26th of Asa
27th of Asa
38th of Asa
4th of Ahab
2nd of Jehoram
8 years of reign
SEPTUAGINT
24th of Jeroboam
20th of Asa
not given
2nd of Jehoshaphat
11th of Omri
18th of Jehoshaphat
40 years of reign
A careful investigation of these variations reveals that they are not the result of scribal errors, but constitute editorial changes made with the object of correcting what were considered as "errors" in the original Hebrew text. In no instance is a Greek variation an improvement over the Hebrew. The fallacious nature of the Greek innovations may be proved by the wide divergence of the patterns of reign that they call for from the years of contemporary chronology.
For example, the Hebrew text of I Kings 22:41 tells us that Jehoshaphat ascended to the throne of Judah in the 4th year of the reign of Ahab of the Kingdom of Israel. The Greek Septuagint gives the same data here, but the Greek has another account of Jehoshaphat's reign at First Kings 16:28 (III Kings by LXX reckoning) that places the accession of Jehoshaphat in the 11th year of Omri of Israel – some four years earlier. In addition, I Kings 16:29 of the Hebrew Bible records that Ahab ascended to the throne of Israel in the 38th year of Asa, King of Judah, whereas the Greek gives Ahab's accession as the 2nd year of Jehoshaphat – which is 5 years later (see chart, p. 11).
The question naturally arises in the mind of the text critic, "Did the Greek text precede the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew precede the Greek?" In his 1964 doctoral dissertation, James D. Shenkel affirmed that the Greek was the early and correct pattern for the Hebrew rulers and that the Hebrew regnal data arose as variants from an original Greek pattern.43 Such is representative of the vogue of current critical thinking with regard to the LXX as being often preferred over the Hebrew Scripture.
Conclusive proof that the current Hebrew text was in existence before the Greek is found at I Kings 16:28 where the Greek places an additional account of Jehoshaphat. That verse is the concluding statement concerning the reign of King Omri. The narrative relating to the next Monarch should begin with verse 29. In both the Greek and the Hebrew, verse 29 is where the account of Ahab commences. But in order to permit the account of Ahab to begin there and yet have the account of Jehoshaphat precede that of Ahab, the Greek has attached the entire account of Jehoshaphat as an appendage to the account of Omri's reign. The account of Jehoshaphat (I Kings 22:41-50) takes up ten verses. If the Greek text had been in existence before the Hebrew text, the account of Jehoshaphat would have been given at I Kings 16:29-38, and it would then have been followed by the account of Ahab. There would have been no second account of Jehoshaphat after the account of Ahab at I Kings 22:41.44
Obviously, the Greek editor was endeavoring to follow the arrangement of chapters and verses found in the Hebrew. The Hebrew is perfectly consistent in the matter of sequence, with Ahab following Omri and with Jehoshaphat following Ahab. The Greek, however, is conspicuously inconsistent. It depicts Jehoshaphat of Judah as following Ahab of Israel at I Kings 22:41-50, but preceding him at I Kings 16:28.
The problem arose when the Greek editor could not understand how a reign of twelve years for Omri that began in the 31st year of Asa could terminate in the 38th year of Asa with Ahab coming to the throne at that time. But the data does not represent an error, rather, it is merely a paradox; an apparent error.
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY BASED ON HEBREW (True) O.T. TEXT
(See I Kings 16 - not drawn to scale.)
955 930 929 925 918 914 897 889
ISRAEL
Zimri 7 days
Elah Omri – 12 yrs
953 BC 2
Baasha 24 c. 5 yrs
4 Ahab
Omri & Tibni Omri only 7
Civil War 22
JUDAH
955 BC 27 31 38 Jehoshaphat
Asa 41 25
This apparent error in the Hebrew Scripture left him on the horns of a dilemma. So the Greek editor attempted to "correct" the "contradiction" by beginning the twelve years of Omri's dominion in the 31st year of Asa's reign (the year that Omri became ruler over all of Israel upon the death of his rival, Tibni), not in the 27th year of Asa as I Kings 16:8-18 demands (the year Omri began to rule over only a part of the divided kingdom of Israel).
As Asa reigned 41 years, the first part of Omri's dominion would, in such case, parallel the last part of Asa's and the final years of Omri would parallel the first years of Jehoshaphat. Under this contrivance, Jehoshaphat would come to the throne in the 11th year of Omri in accordance with the Greek version of I Kings 16:28, and Ahab would begin to reign in the 2nd year of Jehoshaphat in accordance with the Greek version of I Kings 16:29.
The foregoing unmistakably discloses that the Hebrew was the original account, not the Greek. Thus, the Greek arrangement reveals itself to be a late, artificial, deceptive contrivance brought into being in an attempt to correct something that was actually accurate but appeared wrong to the reviser.
It should be added that though his work contains about eight discordances with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (seven of which are very small), none of Josephus' variations is the same as any found in the Septuagint. We submit this indicates that:
Josephus did not consider the LXX reliable, or
The LXX did not exist in his day!
Either is devastating to the position that the LXX has somehow ascended in the minds of most scholars.
CHAPTER SUMMATION
Even a cursory comparison between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text (as translated in the King James Bible) clearly reveals that the Septuagint as it is today is highly inaccurate and deficient as a translation. To attempt to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the modern versions are trying to do) from such a loose, deficient and unacceptable translation would be analogous to trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from The Living Bible.45
Heaven and earth shall pass away:
but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31
II. THE STATUS OF THE LXX
THE HEXAPLA AND MESSIANIC PROPHECY46
Origen Adamantius47 compiled an Old Testament "Bible" called the Hexapla (c.245 A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible comprising six columns. The first column was the Hebrew Old Testament. In order to leave abundant space for his "critical apparatus", this column contained no more than two Hebrew words to a line. In the second column, Origen transliterated the Hebrew words from the first column into the parallel letters of the Greek alphabet. Of course these Greek letters did not form words or make sense. Three other columns portrayed Greek translations made by men who professed Christianity at some time in their lives but who later apostatized, returning to Judaism or becoming Ebionites.48
The third column was a Greek version by Aquila (80-135 A.D.) who had converted to Judaism. Later, upon seeing miracles at the hands of disciples of the deceased Apostles, he professed the Christian faith. He was excommunicated from the Christian community for steadfastly refusing to give up astrology,49 magic, and the practice of necromancy.50 Aquila returned to Judaism (some say he also embraced the Ebionite ethic) and eventually was responsible for a contemptuous outrage against the Jews. During the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-13, he supervised the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter on the site of the Temple of Solomon and placed a statue of the Emperor where the Holy of Holies had been.51 He thus ended his vaudevillian checkered career engaged in the making of idols for the Roman Caesar.
About 128 A.D., Aquila, who did not begin the study of the Hebrew language until he was forty years old, completed a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek. He deliberately translated many sections of Scripture concerning the Messiah in such a way as to make it impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ.52 He conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not the virgin Mary, but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila, the correct understanding was that Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German extraction named "pantheras" (Eng. = panther).53
Not long afterward, Symmachus – a Samaritan by birth who became a Jew and later professed the Christian faith only to subsequently join himself to the Ebionites – made another translation (c.180-192 A.D.) from the Hebrew into Greek. This version appears as the fourth column in Origen's Hexapla.
About the same time, Theodotion, who had once professed faith in Christ but apostatized becoming a Jew and/or an Ebionite, produced yet another Greek version (c.161-181 A.D.). It is, supposedly, a revision of the original Septuagint. Because it was prepared from a Greek rather than from a Hebrew text, it was placed in the sixth column of the Hexapla.
Jerome of Bethlehem, who saw the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, makes it quite plain that these men were Judaizing heretics, and that their versions were made out of hatred to Christianity.54 Origen, however, considered the works of these Ebionites to be "inspired" and thus included them in his "Bible".
A prime example of tampering with Messianic prophecy by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion is found in Isaiah 7:14. They departed from the Septuagint (and Matthew of the N.T.) in which "parthenos" (virgin) is inscribed and substituted the Greek word "neanis" (young woman), a term which may be applied to a young married woman.
Most sources claim that by the time of Origen (A.D. 185-254) the text of the Septuagint had become woefully corrupt. The fifth column (written in classical Greek, not Koine Greek) is Origen's emended translation. Origen's Hexapla is reputed to have been "an undertaking of colossal proportions" to revise an older Greek translation. Moreover, the fifth column supposedly represents a revision of the pre A.D. original LXX (if such an entity ever existed). Origen is alleged to have noted that copies of the Greek version differed in many respects from the Hebrew text. His self appointed task is said to have been neither to merely produce a new corrected translation nor to "restore" the text of the LXX to its "original" pre A.D. condition.55 The purpose was to make it "correctly and adequately represent the Hebrew original".56
His fifth column portrays a Greek text in which all additions to the Hebrew were marked with an obelus (either -- or ). He emended the Greek text by supplying words missing in it, but which were found in the Hebrew text. He flagged these "added" words with an asterisk (*). Also, he indicated readings in the Greek translation which he considered incorrect to the point that the passage be substituted with the corresponding one in another version. Origen completed the Hexapla about A.D. 245.
Today, this 5th column is said to represent a "pre-Origenic" text, but the basis for this statement is fragile and nebulous – composed of little real substance. The 5th column was published by Pamphilus and Eusebius when they supplied Constantine with 50 copies of that edition along with Origen's edited New Testament.57 This was commissioned by the Emperor in 331 A.D., shortly after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). The uncial manuscripts Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a are extant copies (or copies of copies) of this endeavor by Eusebius for Constantine.58
Origen left his finished product, the Hexapla, in the library founded by his disciple, Pamphilus, at Caesarea on the sea in the land Palestine.59 Jerome also made extensive use of Origen's Hexapla in producing his early fifth century Latin Vulgate translation. The Hexapla is believed to have been destroyed when the Arabs took Caesarea in A.D. 638.60 Fragments are preserved in various quotations made by the so-called early Church "Fathers".
Most scholars maintain that Origen assumed the original reading had been "recovered" when he found agreement between the Hebrew text in the first column and the Greek text (the one he was presumed to have used). Today, this 5th column is referred to by text critics (though they are loathe to admit this) as the "LXX" or the "Septuagint".61 Remember, allusion to Origen's fifth column refers only to the Old Testament.
OTHER REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT
Of the more important revisions of the LXX, Jerome cites one Hesychius of Alexandria (martyred c.311 A.D.) as having completed such an enterprise; unfortunately little is known of him. He is thought to have been the martyred bishop mentioned by Eusebius who fell in the persecution that also destroyed Lucian; his text is said to have prevailed in Egypt c.A.D. 400.62 Lucian, an Arian scholar of Antioch (martyred 311), is also said to have made a revision.63
In commenting upon the revisions of the Septuagint, D.W. Gooding says "Well-intentioned as all this revisory work was, it has introduced multitudinous readings which have laboriously to be eliminated to reconstruct the earlier stages of the LXX Text."64 Gooding continues:
"Now, laborious as is the work of eliminating revisers readings, it is of practical importance. The expositor who ... appeals to some LXX word or phrase must be sure that it was not introduced by a reviser after New Testament times."65 "Thus the original Septuagint may have been faithful in translating verses of Messianic prophecy, but this becomes marred by later revision."66 (see p. 14)
THE "BIBLE" OF THE EARLY CHURCH?
When researching materials relevant to the Septuagint, a typical statement encountered by the inquirer is that it was "the" Bible of the early Christians. The problem with this and many similar declarations is that most scholars consider that Origen67 was a Christian, but he was not. Neither was Eusebius68 nor many other of the so-called early Church "Fathers". Their beliefs relevant to the deity of Christ Jesus reveal that they were merely religious Gnostics, steeped in pagan Greek philosophy. Thus, a significant number of the people about whom such statements are directed were not actually Christian in the true sense of having been born again.
Along these same lines, it is also often stated that the LXX caused so much antagonism among Orthodox Jews that the Hebrews made a recension (revision) in their own text. Typical examples of this and similar themes are:
"Before the incarnation of the Saviour the Jews held the Septuagint in high esteem, but after his birth and earthly ministry they turned against that version because it was used so effectively by Christians to demonstrate that the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the Person and Work of the Redeemer."69
"After Philo's days, the Jews turned that feast (in memory of the Greek translation by the 72) into a fast, lamenting that such a translation had been made. As the version became more popular with the Christians, it fell from favour with the Jews, who preferred to use a version which the Christians could not so easily apply to the Messiah."70
The first obvious fact concerning these and other similar absurd remarks is that the Hebrew Old Testament readily lends itself to supply all the testimony needed to verify that the life and works of Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth, are anticipated by these same Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible is simply rife with one clear prophecy after another which is fulfilled to the most minute detail by the record of the New Testament. No Old Testament Greek witness is necessary to clarify anything. Secondly, there is no concrete evidence that this recension even took place.71
AN EXTANT PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?
A major source of unsettlement and puzzlement for any who begin to investigate the Septuagint is the oft occurring appearance of the term "extant" with reference to a pre-Christian entity.
For example, the "Introduction" of the 1970 Zondervan edition of the LXX begins:
"The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the Septuagint ..."72 (author's emphasis)
The disturbing part is that the above quote proclaims that a B.C. Septuagint is extant. The word "extant" means that something is in existence today – that it is available, that it can be seen, handled and used. And so we inquire, where is it – where may we find such an ancient authority as to the true text of the Old Testament? The quotation declares unequivocally that a Greek translation made around 285-250 B.C. is accessible for reference. Not only are we unable to locate any such entity, we cannot even find any direct citation to it.
Upon examining two Septuagint Concordances for references, we are astonished to find not one word from a Greek O.T. written before A.D. 120 that the Apostles quoted in the New Testament. There exist no verses that any New Testament writer quoted from any Greek manuscript written prior to 120 A.D. We do find about a dozen quotations in the New Testament that match those found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus – but these two highly vaunted MSS were written nearly 250 years after the N.T. was completed. We also find nearly a dozen quotations in them that do not match.
Thus we stand perplexed and frustrated. We have examined the origins of the LXX and found them lacking, full of fable, myth, and legend. Now we stand deceived and misled, having been told that a B.C. Septuagint is available for use only to find that such an ancient document does not actually exist anywhere in the known world.
Even more troubling, the proof quotations are found to only exist in manuscripts that were written several hundred years after the fact. Moreover, the real LXX for all practical purposes is found to actually be Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph (a, also designated "S")73 – which were both produced from Origen's 5th column.
Thus, the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is, the vast majority of the time, Origen's 5th column. This is most bewildering! We ask ourselves: "How then do we really know that Origen's 5th column was produced from a pre-existing B.C. Greek version. How do we know that it was not his own translation of the Hebrew in column one, and made while referring to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in the other columns for assistance – along with the aid of a New Testament at his hand?" Such is not nearly as far fetched as the exaggerations, deceptions, and myths which we have encountered in our research.
WAS THERE ACTUALLY A PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA SEPTUAGINT?
Paul Kahle, a notable O.T. scholar (1875-1964), did extensive research and work relative to the Septuagint. He concluded that there was never one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so called) cannot be traced back to one archetype. He took the position that there were earlier renderings of the Pentateuch before the revision made in the time of Ptolemy II and that this revision became the standard Greek Torah.74
The theory, proposed and developed largely by Kahle, is that the LXX had its origin in numerous oral, and subsequently written, translations for use in the services after the reading of the Hebrew original. Later an official standardized version of the Law was made, but it did not entirely replace the older versions while there never was a standard Jewish translation for the rest of the books, but only a variety of versions.75
Summarizing Kahle's position, Dr. John H.P. Reumann states:
"Professor Paul Kahle ... (1875-1964), ... argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria."76
Reumann continues:
"... The letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity. ... when Christians (who increasingly after the year A.D. 50 were Greeks who knew little or no Hebrew) employed the Old Testament, they inevitably borrowed from these varied Jewish Greek translations – the Pentateuch as it had been revised at Alexandria, the book of Daniel as it had been translated at Ephesus, and so forth – until they put together an Old Testament in Greek ... which they called the 'Septuagint' after the title from the Aristeas legend. ... the LXX is a Christian compilation, and The Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further the use of a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C."77
Some go much farther, considering the entire story of the existence of a Greek Old Testament circulating in or around Palestine prior to the time of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen (150-250 A.D.) to be nothing more than a fable. They doubt that a Greek copy of the Old Testament existed at or before the time of Christ and His apostles.78
This argument can be summarized as stating that:
(1) The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle called it propaganda), and there is no hard historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 285-150 B.C.
(2) The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.
(3) No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 150 A.D.
(4) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen produced the first "Septuagints" – that none existed before their works.
(5) The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product.
(6) After 1900 years of searching, archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".
They further point out that the nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 45, which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it.79 This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint (see footnote 7, p. 32).
IS THE APOCRYPHA THE CLUE TO THE TRUTH REGARDING THE SEPTUAGINT?
As mentioned previously, nearly all scholars believe that the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla is Origen's revision of a B.C. Septuagint. Nevertheless, as noted in the previous heading, some dissenters believe that the so called LXX in fact originates with Origen's fifth column – that the 5th column is based on and constructed from the versions in the other columns – and that Origen also had a N.T. at his side to further assist him.
If this were the actual case, the "LXX" would not have appeared until the completion of the Hexapla c.245 A.D. Further, as the Apocrypha80 has always been "part and parcel" of the Septuagint, it is worthy of note that it is in the fifth column that the Apocrypha makes its appearance. We thus maintain that this 5th column has been a leading source of O.T. corruption. It also had an extensive influence on Jerome's Latin Vulgate text as well as on the inclusion of the Apocrypha in that undertaking.
"The Greek Old Testament includes a number of books which apparently circulated in the Greek-speaking world (led by Alexandria) and obtained equal acceptance with the canonical books. These never obtained entrance to the Hebrew Canon."
With these words concerning the Apocrypha, Kenyon81 exposes for us the source and exact status regarding its "leaven-like" entrance to the Canon. Thus Alexandria and its "greatest" teacher, Origen are seen as the impetus for bringing the Apocrypha into the Bible. We cannot find any indication that the Apocrypha was part of any Bible prior to the Hexapla.
THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE HEBREW TEXT82
In Old Testament times, the Levitical priests copied and preserved the Living Words of God. Throughout Scripture, all the scribes were of the tribe of Levi (Mal.2:7, Deu.3l:25, Deu.17:1. This method of preserving the text was extremely successful as the Lord Jesus bore witness that not "one jot or tittle" had been altered in the 1,500 years from Moses to His day (Mat.5:1.
As to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament in our day, Bishop Benjamin Kennicott did a study of 581 manuscripts of the Old Testament which involved 280,000,000 letters. Out of that 280,000,000, there were 900,000 variants. Although seemingly large to the reader, it is only one variant in 316 letters which is only 1/3 of 1%. But there is more. Of those 900,000 variants, 750,000 pertain to spelling – i.e., whether a letter should be an "i" or "u". This has to do with the vowel points used in pronunciation which were added c.600 A.D. by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. Thus we are left with only 150,000 variants in 280,000,000 letters or only one variant in 1,580 letters, a degree of accuracy of .0006 (six ten thousandths). Most of the variants are found in only a few manuscripts; in fact, most are from just one corrupted copy.
The Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Old Testament with the vowel points added to aid in pronunciation). The earliest Masoretic Text which we have is dated c.900 A.D. Almost no changes have occurred in the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah 53, for example, contains only one word of three letters which is in doubt after nearly eleven hundred years of copying. In a chapter of 166 words, only 17 were different – 10 were spelling and 4 were conjunctions.
Actually, the Masoretic Text is the true text, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, even though the Scrolls are more than a thousand years older. The Dead Sea material was not written by Jews who were given the charge by God to protect them. They were not of the tribe of Levi. They were Essenes, a Jewish cult of ascetics whose teachings were rife with heresies.
Similarly, the Septuagint manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among them-selves and disagree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text in many places. Both cannot be correct. As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.285-250 B.C. original – if such a translation actually existed in the first place.
For ever, O LORD,
thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:17
III. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LXX
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT?
It is agreed by all that the Septuagint is far from perfect, and no claim has been advanced by modern scholarship for the divine inspiration of the translators (although Augustine so claimed, Jerome severely ridiculed this notion). Several different paths must now be examined in order to fully address the issue under question.
A. DIRECT HEBREW - LXX COMPARISONS
There are about 263 direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New. Among the most thorough analysis of these is that of Thomas Hartwell Horne.83 Like many others, he has classified the passages in question into various groupings. Horne gives 14 different categories viz.: quotations exactly agreeing with the Hebrew, those nearly agreeing with the Hebrew, etc. Often the same passage may fall equally well into more than one grouping. This results in much overlapping so that the total citations from the 14 categories exceed the 263 direct references.
The following quotation not only reveals and confirms the status to which the LXX is held among today's scholars (as was reported at the onset of this study), it clearly discloses Horne's frame of reference regarding the entire issue before us:
"A considerable difference of opinion exists among some learned men, whether the Evangelists and other writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament from the Hebrew, or from the venerable Greek version, usually called the Septuagint. Others, however, are of opinion, that they did not confine themselves exclusively to either; and this appears most probable."84 (author's italics)
Although "considerable difference of opinion" still exists, the scales have sharply swung toward Horne's "most probable" view since 1846 when these words were penned. Whereas nearly all acknowledge the general corruptness of the LXX and thus usually favor the Hebrew, most now believe that they may "pick and choose" between the two in order to establish the "correct" text.
Among Horne's groupings, one finds that 71 selections exactly agree with the Hebrew and another 69 very nearly do. A further 37 agree with the Hebrew in sense but not in words, and 5 are the result of combining pieces of several O.T. passages to form a single thought. It is often difficult to determine from what particular O.T. passages these latter five are derived. A group of 16 read so differently from the Hebrew that they are seen as not actually being intended as citations but merely paraphrases.
Horne lists 85 New Testament passages in the category that correspond almost verbatim to the Septuagint, hence he assumes (as do nearly all others) that they were taken from the LXX. He refers to this as "category I". A further 49 depicting somewhat less precise agreement appears in category II. Another 37 citations in category III have the same meaning as rendered by the LXX, but are expressed in different words. Finally, 11 fall in the group that agrees more closely with the Hebrew, and 23 are placed in the category containing those that differ both from the Hebrew and the LXX.
This author has thoroughly examined and compared each of Horne's citations as well as another exhaustive compilation. My rigorous independent analysis yielded far different results than those of Horne and many other commentaries, encyclopedias, Bible dictionaries etc. They pretend that these passages are undeniable indicators – indeed, veritable "proof texts" – that the New Testament writers were quoting from the LXX rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text. Great exception is taken by the current author (FNJ) - yea, he vehemently challenges, disputes and calls into question the contentions published therein.
Special scrutiny was given to those passages that were said to be "quotations agreeing verbatim with the Septuagint, or only changing the Person, Number & c. (sic) [Case]", designated heretofore as category I. Exceptional effort was put forth on that category because its contents represented the 85 best examples, the absolutely most impressive evidence, in support of their thesis. Though equal energy has been given in the investigation of the 49 passages contained in the second category and the 37 in the third, only examples from category I have been chosen for inclusion in this work. This was done to set at naught the unjust accusation that this author was merely "nit-picking", being unfair, out of context, avoiding the most undeniable proof or – at the very least – puerile.
HEBREW
SEPTUAGINT
NEW TESTAMENT
1. Deuteronomy 6:16
Thou shall not tempt the LORD your God,
Deuteronomy 6:16
ouk ekpeirasei" kurion ton qeon sou
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Matthew 4:7
ouk ekpeirasei" kurion ton qeon sou
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
2. Hosea 6:6
jb^z*-al)w+ yT!x=p^j* ds#j# yK!
I desired mercy and not sacrifice;
Hosea 6:6
eleo" qelw h qusian
I desire mercy rather than sacrifice;
Matthew 9:13
eleon qelw kai ou qusian
I will have mercy, and not sacrifice:
3. Leviticus 19:18
i*wm)K* i*u&r@l= T*b=h^a*w+&
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:
Leviticus 19:18
kai agaphsei" ton plhsion sou w" seauton
And thou shalt love thy neigh-bour as thyself.
Matthew 19:19
agaphsei" ton plhsion sou w" seauton
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
4. Psalm 118:22-23
/b#a#
.hN`P! var)l= ht*y+h*
hw`hy+ ta@m@
.Wnyn}yu@B= tal*p=n! ayh! taZ) ht*y+h*
The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the LORD'S doing, and it is mar-vellous in our eyes.
Psalm 118:22-23
liqon on apedokimasan oi oikodomounte" outo" egenhqh ei" kefalhn gwnia" para kuriou egeneto auth kai estin qaumasth en ofqalmoi" hmwn
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this was from the Lord (or, the Lord's doing); and it is wonderful in our eyes?
Matthew 21:42
liqon on apedokimasan oi oikodomounte" outo" egenhqh ei" kefalhn gwnia" para kuriou egeneto auth kai estin qaumasth en ofqalmoi" hmwn
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
HEBREW
SEPTUAGINT
NEW TESTAMENT
5. Exodus 3:6
yh@l)a$ yk!n{a*
qj*x=y! yh@l)a$
~ bq)u&y~ yh@l)aw}#
I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
Exodus 3:6
egw eimi o qeo" tou patro" sou, qeo" abraam, kai qeo" isaak, kai qeo" iakwb.
I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
Mathew 22:32
egw eimi o qeo" abraam kai o qeo" isaak kai o qeo" iakwb.
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
6. Psalm 110:1
hw`hy+
tyv!a*-du^ yn!ym!yl! bv@ yn!d{al^
.i*yl#g=r^l=
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psalm 110:1
eipen o kurio" tw kuriw mou kaqou ek dexiwn mou ew" an qw tou" ecqrou" sou upopodion twn podwn sou
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool.
Mathew 22:44
eipen o kurio" tw kuriw mou kaqou ek dexiwn mou ew" an qw tou" ecqrou" sou upopodion twn podwn sou
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
7. Psalm 69:10(KJ=9)
yn!t=l*k*a& i*t=yB@ ta^n+q!-yK!
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Psalm 68:9 (KJ=69:9)
o zhlo" tou oikou sou atefagen me
The zeal for thine house hath consumed me.
John 2:17
o zhlo" tou oikou sou atefagen me
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
8. Psalm 109:8
.rj@a^ jQ^y! wt)D`q%P=
let another take his office.
Psalm 109:8
kai thn episkophn autou laboi etero"
and let another take his office, [or bishoprick].
Acts 1:20
kai thn episkophn autou laboi etero"
and his bishoprick let another take.
9. Psalm 2:1-2
hM*l*
.qyr!-WGh=y
hw`hy+-lu^ dj^y`-Wds=wn{
Why did the nations rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed.
Psalm 2:1-2
o dia stomato" dabid tou paido" sou eipwn inati efruaxan eqnh kai laoi emelethsan kena paresthsan oi basilei" th" gh" kai oi arconte" sunhcqhsan epi to auto kata tou kuriou kai kata tou cristou autou
Why did the nations rage, and the people imagine (or mediate) vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, (or combined), and the rulers as-sembled together against the Lord and his Anointed.
Acts 4:25-26
o dia stomato" dabid tou paido" sou eipwn inati efruaxan eqnh kai laoi emelethsan kena paresthsan oi basilei" th" gh" kai oi arconte" sunhcqhsan epi to auto kata tou kuriou kai kata tou cristou autou
Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
HEBREW
SEPTUAGINT
NEW TESTAMENT
10. Psalm 2:7
.i*yT!d+l!y
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Psalm 2:7
uio" mou ei su egw shmeron gegennhka se
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33
uio" mou ei su egw shmeron gegennhka se
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
11. Genesis 17:5
.i*yT!t^n+
a father of many nations. have I made thee.
Genesis 17:5
patera pollwn eqnwn teqeika se
I have made thee the father of many nations.
Romans 4:17
patera pollwn eqnwn teqeika se
I have made thee a father of many nations.
12. Genesis 15:5
.i*u#r=z^ hyh=y! hK)
So shall thy seed be.
Genesis 15:5
outw" estai to sperma sou
So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:18
outw" estai to sperma sou
So shall thy seed be.
13. Psalm 44:22(23)
Wng=r^h) i*yl#u*-yK!
.hj*b=f! /ax)K= Wnb=v^j=n
For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.
Psalm 44:22
oti eneka sou qanatoumeqa olhn thn hmeran elogisqhmen w" probata sfagh".
For, for thy sake we are killed all the day long; and account-ed as sheep for the slaughter.
Romans 8:36
oti eneka sou qanatoumeqa olhn thn hmeran elogisqhmen w" probata sfagh".
For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
14. Genesis 21:12
.ur^z* i*l= ar@Q*y! qj*x=y!b yK!
for, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Genesis 21:12
oti en isaak klhqhsetai soi sperma.
for, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:7
all en isaak klhqhsetai soi sperma.
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
15. Genesis 25:23
.ryu!x db)u&y~ br^w+
The elder shall serve the younger.
Genesis 25:23
kai o meizwn douleusei tw elassoni
And the elder shall serve the younger.
Romans 9:12
o meizwn douleusei tw elassoni
The elder shall serve the younger.
16. Malachi 1:2-3
.bq)u&y~-ta# bh^a)w`
yt!an}c* wc*u@-ta#w+
I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.
Malachi 1:2-3
kai hgaphsa ton iakwb, ton kai hsau emishsa
Yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau.
Romans 9:13
ton iakwb hgaphsa ton de hsau emishsa
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
17. Isaiah 1:9-10
ryt!wh) twa)b*x= hw`hy+ yl@Wl
Wnyy!h*
.Wnym!D` hr*m)u&l^
Isaiah 1:9
kai ei mh kurio" sabawq eg-katelipen hmin sperma w" sodoma an egenhqhmen kai w" gomorra an wmoiwqhmen
Romans 9:29
ei mh kurio" sabawq egkate-lipen hmin sperma w" sodoma an egenhqhmen kai w" gomorra an wmoiwqhmen
HEBREW
SEPTUAGINT
NEW TESTAMENT
Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a very small remant, we should have been as Sodom and we should have been like unto Gomorrha.
Had not the Lord of Hosts left us a seed, we should have been as Sodom, and made like Gomorrha.
Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
18. Deuteronomy 32:21
.
I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger by a foolish nation.
Deuteronomy 32:21
kagw parazhlwsw autou" ep ouk eqnei epi eqnei asunetw parorgiw autou".
I will provoke them by what is not a nation. By a foolish nation will I vex them.
Romans 10:19
egw parazhlwsw uma" ep ouk eqnei epi eqnei asunetw par-orgiw uma".
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
19. Psalm 69:10 (Eng=9)
.yl*u* Wlp=n` i*yp#r=wj) twP)r=j#w+
The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen on me.
Psalm 69:10
oi oneidismoi twn oneidizontwn se epepeson ep eme.
On me have fallen the re-proaches of them that re-proached thee.
Romans 15:3
oi oneidismoi twn oneidizontwn se epepeson ep eme.
The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.
20. Psalm 117:1
hw`hy+-ta# Wll=h
.
Praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
Psalm 117:1
aineite ton kurion panta ta eqnh, epainesate auton pante" oi laoi.
Praise the Lord, all ye nations. Praise him, all ye peoples.
Romans 15:11
aineite ton kurion panta ta eqnh kai epainesate auton pante" oi laoi.
Praise the Lord, all ye Gen-tiles; and laud him, all ye people.
21. Deuteronomy 25:4
.wv)yd!B= rwv)
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Deuteronomy 25:4
ou fimwsei" boun alownta.
Thou shalt not muzzle an ox treading out corn.
1 Corinthians 9:9
ou fimwsei" boun alownta.
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
22. Exodus 32:6
.qj@x^l= Wmq%Y`w~ wt)v*w+ lk)a$l#
The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
Exodus 32:6
kai ekaqisen o lao" fagein kai piein kai anesthsan paizein
And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1 Corinthians 10:7
ekaqisen o lao" fagein kai piein kai anesthsan paizein
The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
23. Psalm 24:1
Ha*wl)m=W Jr#a*h* hw`hyl^
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
Psalm 24:1
tou kuriou h gh, kai to plh-rwma auth".
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1 Corinthians 10:26
tou gar kuriou h gh kai to plhrwma auth".
For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
HEBREW
SEPTUAGINT
NEW TESTAMENT
24. Psalm 8:6
.wyl*g=r^-tj^t^ hT*v^ lK)
Thou hast put all things under his feet.
Psalm 8:6
panta upetaxa" upokatw twn podwn autou.
Thou hast put all things under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15:27
panta gar upetaxen upo tou" poda" autou.
For he hath put all things under his feet.
25. Isaiah 22:13
.tWmn` rj*m* yK! wt)v*w+ lwk)a*
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
Isaiah 22:13
fagwmen kai piwmen aurion gar apoqnhskomen.
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
1 Corinthians 15:32
fagwmen kai piwmen aurion gar apoqnhskomen.
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
26. Psalm 116:10
rB@d~a& yK! yT!n+m^a$h#
I believed, therefore have I spoken;
Psalm 116:10
episteusa, dio elalhsa
I believed; therefore I spake.
2 Corinthians 4:13
episteusa dio elalhsa
I believed, and therefore have I spoken;
27. Psalm 112:9
rZ^P!=
du^l* tdm#u) wt)q*d+x!
He hath dispersed; he hath given to the poor; his right-eousness endureth for ever.
Psalm 112:9
eskorpisen edwken toi" penhsin h dikaiosunh autou menei ei" ton aiwna tou aiwno".
He hath dispersed; he hath given to the needy; his right-eousness shall endure for ever.
2 Corinthians 9:9
eskorpisen edwken toi" penhsin h dikaiosunh autou menei ei" ton aiwna.
He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
28. Psalm 104:4
wyt*r=v*m= twj)Wr wyk*a*l=m^ hc#u)
.fh@l) va@
Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming fire.
Psalm 104:4
o poiwn tou" aggelou" autou pneumata kai tou" leitourgou" autou pur flegon.
Who maketh winds his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers.
Hebrews 1:7
o poiwn tou" aggelou" autou pneumata kai tou" leitourgou" autou puro" floga.
Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
29. Psalm 8:4-6
vwn{a$-hm*
.WNdq=p=t! yK!
fu^M= Whr@S=j^T=w
.Whr@F=u^T= rd`h*w+ dwb)k*w+
yc@u&m^B= Whl@yv!m=T
.wyl*g=r^-tj^t^ hT*v^ lK) i*ydy`
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou madest him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet.
Psalm 8:4-6
ti estin anqrwpo" oti mimnhskh autou; h uio" anqrwpou oti episkepth auton hlattwsa" auton bracu ti par aggelou" doxh kai timh estefanwsa" auton kai katesthsa" auton epi ta erga twn ceirwn sou panta upetaxa" upokatw twn podwn autou.
What is man, that thou shouldest be mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou shouldest visit him? Thou madest him a little lower than angels; with glory and honour, hast thou crowned him, and set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all things under his feet.
Hebrews 2:6-8
ti estin anqrwpo" oti mimnhskh autou h uio" anqrwpou oti episkepth auton hlattwsa" auton bracu ti par aggelou" doxh kai timh estefanwsa" auton kai katesthsa" auton epi ta erga twn ceirwn sou panta upetaxa" upokatw twn podwn autou.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crown-edst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in sub-jection under his feet.
30. Psalm 110:4
yt!r*b=D!-lu^
.qdx#-yK!l=m^
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Psalm 110:4
su iereu" ei" ton aiwna kata thn taxin melcisedek.
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.
Hebrews 5:6
su iereu" ei" ton aiwna kata thn taxin melcisedek.
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
31. Genesis 22:16-17
....hw`hy+-ma%n+ yT!u=B^v=n! yB! rm#aY{w~
hB*r=h^w+ i*k=r#b*a i=r@b*-yK!
i*u&r=z^-ta# hB#r=a^&
By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, ...... that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multi plying I will multiply thy seed.
Genesis 22:16-17
legwn, Kat emautou wmosa, legei Kurio" -- H mhn eulogwn euloghsw se kai plhqunwn plhqunw to sperma sou.
Saying, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, -- with blessings, I will indeed bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed abundantly.
Hebrews 6:13-14
o qeo" ... wmosen kaq eautou legwn h mhn eulogwn euloghsw se kai plhqunwn plhqunw se.
God ... sware by himself, Say-ing, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
32. Deuteronomy 32:36
wM)u^ hw`hy+ /yd!y`-yK
The Lord shall judge his people.
Deuteronomy 32:36
oti krinei kurio" ton laon autou.
Because the Lord will judge his people.
Hebrews 10:30
kurio" krinei ton laon autou.
The Lord shall judge his people.
Although the reader may not possess the language skills necessary to make a full determination as to the exact significance and extent of the comparisons, the truth with regard to the situation before us may clearly be ascertained by all who thoroughly analyze the foregoing.85
The investigation was able to readily access the languages in question as Horne's volume gives the Hebrew and Greek directly above each passage. It is willingly conceded that, especially in the shorter phrases and clauses found in their lists, the LXX sometimes agrees precisely verbatim with the N.T. in its Greek wording. However, usually the Hebrew concurs exactly.
Examples have been deliberately selected that most clearly depict the illegitimate nature of their claim. As one can see on the previous pages, no essential difference exists between the Hebrew or Greek O.T. readings. Remember, these are all taken from category I, the group that best matches the LXX and is the chief witness for the opposing viewpoint. Therefore no fault may rightly be laid against this author regardless of which passages he selected. This is especially true since such a liberal sampling has been given, i.e., 32 of the 85 (nearly 40%). At the same time, effort has been made so as not to present too many that the reader may become fatigued.
The investigation of "category I" concluded that of the 85 citations offered by Horne, 49 (58%) depict no material difference between the Hebrew and the LXX. A further 17 offer no real difference but very slightly favor the LXX, and one leans very slightly toward the Hebrew. There are 9 that favor the LXX and one that has a bias toward the Hebrew. Of the remaining 8, 3 are protracted statements wherein part reads more like the Hebrew and part like the LXX. Another three are not quotations at all but merely allusions.
Having painstakingly completed the study, this author now dares ask "How and why is it so vigorously maintained that the New Testament is quoting from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew?" Their thesis that the New Testament writers were quoting from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew lies exposed – laid bare as specious and vacuous. And yet, there is more.
B. IRREFUTABLE INTERNAL EVIDENCE86
From a Bible honoring frame of reference, there is strong internal evidence that challenges the authenticity of the existence of a pre-Christian era LXX or, more precisely, if such an entity had existed, Jesus and His apostles did not use it. That is, there are various references in the New Testament which clearly demonstrate that the Lord Jesus referred to the Hebrew Old Testament rather than to the Greek Septuagint or any other version.
(1) Mat. 5:17,18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The reference to the "Law or the Prophets" is a reference to the two major portions of the tripartite Hebrew Canon, (the third is called the Writings). Yet more to the point, our Lord's reference to "jot" and "tittle" could only refer to the Hebrew and not the Greek Old Testament! The Greek alphabet has neither jot nor tittle. Only the Hebrew alphabet contains "jots" (the letter "yod", i.e., y which is about one third normal height of the other Hebrew letters) and "tittles" (the minute "horns" or extensions seen on the letters d, r, b, p, etc.).
(2) Mat. 7:12 ... Law and the Prophets
(3) Mat. 11:13 ... all the Prophets and the Law
(4) Mat. 22:40 ... all the Law and the Prophets
(5) Luke 24:27,44 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself ... These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.
Here is a very clear indication of the threefold division of the Hebrew Canon into Law, Prophets and Psalms (which appears first in order in the Writings). The Septuagint, interspersed as it is with the books of the Apocrypha, does not have this threefold division87 – consequently, Christ was not using it. Selah! (i.e., "pause and meditate", a Hebrew expression occurring 71 times in the O.T.).
(6) Luke 4:16-21 ... He went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias (Isaiah).
Since the language used by the Jews in their synagogues was Hebrew, we can be certain that the scroll which was delivered to Him was written in Hebrew.88 Even today the Jews read and use Hebrew in their Synagogues as it is their only "holy language"89 – the one in which their Scriptures were originally written. The Lord Jesus Christ showed great respect for the Old Testament Word and upheld it completely.
(7) Mat. 23:35 ... That upon you may come all the righteous blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
By this reference, the Lord intended to charge the scribes and Pharisees with the blood of all the righteous people shed in the entire Old Testament.90 One may inquire, but how can one know that this is His intent? Abel is found in Genesis 4 which is the first book in the Hebrew Bible, whereas the account of Zacharias is found in II Chronicles 24:20-22 (O.T. spelling = Zechariah). If one examines a Hebrew Bible, he finds that II Chronicles is the very last book within that volume (i.e., it is the last book in the third section, the Writings). Thus, "Abel unto Zacharias"91 is but another way of saying "from beginning to end" or "from the first to the last."
If, on the other hand, one looks at a Septuagint edition, such as the scholarly work edited by Alfred Rahlfs,92 he finds that it ends with Daniel followed by "Bel and the Dragon"! Dr. D.A. Waite has rightly detected that this is a clear proof that our Savior referred to and used the Hebrew and not the Greek Old Testament93. It is submitted that the Apostles would have followed their Master's lead and continued this policy.
THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT ANALYZED
Nevertheless, the objection is often voiced that we cannot take the Masoretic Text as the proper basis of the Old Testament translation process because the N.T. allegedly quotes from the LXX, thereby sanctioning that translation as a whole!94 Let us analyze this objection.
Does the N.T. actually quote from the LXX? The highly fable-like, embellished nature of the "history" of its origin coupled with the absence of any extant LXX papyri older than A.D. 12095 leave justifiable cause to doubt that such an entity as a B.C. Septuagint ever existed. How then may we be certain that the present text of the LXX is not merely that found in the Greek O.T. translations of the second century A.D. by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion – as edited by Origen in his Hexapla (q.v. p. 18 and p. 20).96 If this were the actual case, this text would be younger than that of the N.T. As such, those translators would have been revising the O.T. quotes from the N.T. rather than vice versa!
After all, does a mere similarity in wording of the N.T. to that of the Greek O.T. necessarily mean that they were direct quotations?97 Is not God the Holy Spirit, who inspired the very words of the O.T. (and the N.T.), free to select the words He wishes to communicate in the N.T.? Does it necessarily follow that He is bound to repeat exactly His own words on every occasion in which He refers to the O.T. Hebrew text? Does He not have liberty to alter, restate, and moreover tailor these citations to better fit the current situation, times or culture by adding to, or subtracting from that text for the sake of clarity as He presents truth in the New Testament?
As a matter of fact, the very same citations are frequently contracted by some of the four Evangelists, whereas often enlarged by others. These differences may be accounted for by the differing occasions on which they were brought to bear and the different designs they were intended to accomplish.
Occasionally, the N.T. writer did not intend to give a direct quote, but merely a combination of parts of several O.T. Scriptures. These were shortened for the sake of brevity due to various predicaments or conditions and brought to bear on applicable situations. Other times, they were led to express briefly the sense but not the words of the former prophets and scribes. Not infrequently, the writer is inspired to abridge part of a verse or story only to then add a clause by way of explanation. It is thereby precarious and imprudent to presume that because a New Testament passage does not precisely quote the O.T., either a corruption of some sort must surely exist or that the writer is quoting from another source. Although such be the vogue of the day, faith demands better.
Even if the Hebrew text had been translated into Greek prior to the time of Christ, and it must be acknowledged that this possibility exists, it does not follow that because there are some instances in which a similarity in wording which resembles the Greek O.T. more closely than the Hebrew that such constitutes conclusive proof that the Greek O.T. is somehow superior to the Masoretic Text. God did not inspire the Greek words of the O.T. – only the original Hebrew words!98 At best, such a Greek O.T. would be but a translation of the God given Hebrew text. After all, the divine oracles were given to Israel (Rom. 3:1-3). This is a very important distinction which must be borne in mind in this vital matter of O.T. translation. As a translation, the most that could be achieved would be equality and even equality would require, at the very least, the Providential hand of God over the entire matter. However, when we consider the external and more especially the internal evidence heretofore offered, we have no indication whatever that this has occurred with regard to the LXX.
Again, with regard to the origin of the Septuagint, the first real solid evidence of a Greek O.T. is in the group of new translations that took place in the second century A.D. These are, of course, those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, beside the scanty remnants of further anonymous versions. The possibility therefore exists that these works are themselves the first Septuagints.99
If such is the actual situation, it would follow that Origen's fifth column, rather than being a revision and restoration of a B.C. Greek translation, is nothing more than his own version and that Origen used the labors of these three Ebionites to assist him in his endeavor. The explanation of the close agreement between the New Testament quotes and the "LXX" would then be the exact reverse of that which is being offered by nearly all expositors. That is, rather than Jesus and the Apostles referring to and quoting from the Septuagint, the producers of the Septuagint were writing after the fact by nearly a hundred years and thus had access to New Testament documents. With these New Testament readings before them, they then altered parts of the Hebrew Old Testament as they translated it into Greek, forcing them to better match the New Testament quotations.
WHY THEN DO CONSERVATIVES UPHOLD THE LXX?
If there is such a dearth of hard evidence to prove the existence of a pre-Christian Septuagint, the question arises as to why such an entity is so universally accepted within fundamental conservative circles? Why has the Christian community accepted almost by faith alone the salient parts of this story? Other than that of "tradition", this author has been able to identify only two reasons why, in conservative judgment, such a posture is deemed necessary.
A. TO DEFEND "VIRGIN" IN ISAIAH 7:14
The first100 is that the Septuagint is viewed in most conservative, Bible believing communities as the chief obstacle in the path of the radical scholars who wish to change the translation of the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 from "virgin" to "young woman."101
The immediate and decisive proof that "almah" means virgin in Isaiah is found in the inspired declaration of the apostle Matthew: "Behold, a virgin [Greek = "parthenos" = parqeno"] shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (1:23).
The enemies of the Gospel have not hesitated to charge that Matthew misrepresented the content of Isaiah. Aquila, the Ebionite (80-135 A.D.), conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not the virgin Mary, but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila, Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German lineage named "pantheras".102 Remember, Aquila translated "almah" into the Greek word "neanis" rather than "parthenos" in order to perpetuate his hatred for the Christ.
The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T.103 It should be rendered "virgin" in Isaiah for although "almah" could mean "young woman", every time it is used in the Old Testament the context demands that it means "virgin". The other six times "almah" occurs, it is translated virgin in nearly all of the various versions. One cannot but wonder as to why the sudden departure was deemed necessary on the part of the translators in the particular verse before us. The sign given to bring hope in a desperate situation was that a virgin was going to conceive! The conception of some arbitrarily selected "young woman" would hardly have been taken as an assuring prediction.
Moreover, all languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" is meant a word that has many shades of meaning or even widely different meanings, i.e., the word "cool" in today's English. Such words can defy etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words which have a very limited narrow meaning – often they contain only one possible sense. We begin to see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word to man in two tongues. Weak words in one language, which could lead to confusion, can be covered by strong words in the other by cross references and quotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah" (although not so weak by its Biblical usage, as already noted) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word "parthenos" which can only be translated "virgin". The translators of the modern versions are well aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos"; hence, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into any other word represents a deliberate willful alteration of the Word of God.
Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary definition or etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science. It should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.
Furthermore, Genesis 3:15 records the prophecy that there would be a "seed" of the woman and that "seed" would be a man. This promised individual would come in the fullness of time and crush the serpent's head. This prophecy can only pertain to a virgin conception (called "parthenogenesis") for women do not have seeds; they have eggs. Only when an egg is fertilized does it become a seed. There was going to be a "seed" with no mention of any man. This is the import of what Genesis 3:15 declares and in so doing, it corroborates and confirms both the Isaiah passage as well as Matthew 1:23. Moreover, the account of Mary's promised miraculous (not - immaculate) conception recorded by Luke declares the same truth; viz., that Mary was a virgin and yet she was to conceive a son (Luk. 1:26-37, especially vs. 34). Thus we establish that the Bible believer does not need the LXX to bolster and support the certainty that Mary was a virgin when she miraculously conceived (without intercourse) the Lord Jesus Christ.
B. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE O.T. WAS TRANSLATED
The second reason is even less essential. It involves establishing, on the part of those who feel that the Septuagint is a viable and necessary link in sustaining the faith, that the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek by the 72 scholars and not merely the Pentateuch. The rational for this is that the radicals, in espousing their theory of "Christological development," attempted to establish that Aristeas and Josephus had declared that only the Law (the first 5 books of Moses) had been translated into Greek.104 This was a shrewd move on their part, for the messianic predictions in those 5 books are relatively few and often obscure. Such a position enabled them to relegate to a later date and an anonymous authorship the translation into Greek of all the prophetic books of the O.T. – books which contain indisputable messianic predictions. This was done to make it seem that these prophecies concerning Jesus were written after the fact.
At the time of Christ, Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the land of Palestine. Only the better educated Jews were well versed in Hebrew – much as Latin was the language of the learned in Europe and America during the past several hundred years. Most of the early Christians, Gentile or Jew, read Greek and not Hebrew. The above stated move would therefore seemingly give credence to the radical thesis that the doctrines of Jesus' divinity and messiahship "evolved" over a period of time after His crucifixion, and that they were based upon late "unauthorized" translations that were prepared for "special interest" sects. The radical critics proposed that these sects were being led by men who were trying to "make" Jesus "seem" godlike and thus confer messiahship upon Him.
But attempting to counter such drivel by arguing that the term "the Law" can refer to the entire body of Scripture and not to just the first five books (even though this is true i.e., see John 12:34 and I Cor. 14:21) is a waste of time and energy. In the first place Flavius Josephus, upon whom the radicals appeal, affirms that the entire Old Testament had been written by the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus (465-424 B.C.), the son of Xerxes.105 Most of the early Jewish converts would have heard these messianic passages growing up, as they surely did, in the synagogue. Secondly, the premiere Christian teacher and founder of churches during the apostolic period was Paul. As a Pharisee and a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil.3:5), he would have been well established in the Hebrew language. Paul could and would have taught from the original Hebrew text. Therefore all the messianic prophesies were available to the early churches without the need of a Greek Old Testament.
We hasten to add that nearly all scholars, especially those with a liberal bent, are of the opinion that the writers of the New Testament did not confine themselves exclusively to either the Hebrew or the LXX but randomly quoted from both. They assert that as many of the communities were unlearned in Hebrew, the LXX took precedence in citations. They also insist that whenever the LXX was inaccurate or did not give the sense, the writers of the N.T. forsook that version in order to give the genuine meaning and import and then cited instead from the Hebrew.106 But in so stating, they shoot themselves in the foot, for if the N.T. writers had to resort often to the Hebrew anyway, then the language barrier argument that the Jews around Alexandria had forgotten their language and therefore needed the Scriptures translated into Greek falls flat on its face. The fact is that the Hebrew was cited both in gentile congregations and communities – and not infrequently. Why then should they ever have turned to the LXX since inevitably they were going to have to appeal to the Hebrew anyway?
Lastly, as we have the infallible Word available to us today in our own language as found in the 1611 King James Bible (the logical inexorable conclusion that exercising faith in God's many promises to preserve His Word leads one) – we can see for ourselves that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophesies and is indeed the predicted Messiah of Israel, the Lord and Savior of the World. Thus there is no need for any pre-Christian LXX, in either its entirety or the Law only.
Emphasis is being placed on this issue because the inquirer is often left with the distinct impression that the Septuagint represents a Greek rendering of an accurate Hebrew original text. Further, that supposedly the present Hebrew Masoretic text is corrupt, hence, it should often be rejected where it does not match the Septuagint. Yet the extant LXX in reality is nothing more than the pagan religious Greek philosopher Origen's 5th column which Eusebius copied when he directed the preparation of the 50 "Bibles" for Constantine.
LXX "PROOF TEXTS" FOUND WANTING
As just mentioned, we are continually being "informed" by various modern scholars that the Septuagint represents a Greek rendering of an accurate Hebrew original text, and that the present Hebrew Masoretic text represents a corrupted version of the original. We are thereby enjoined to frequently reject the current Hebrew text where it does not match the Septuagint.
Some of the principal "proof texts" that are perceived as depicting the LXX as preserving parts of the original Old Testament which have been lost are Genesis 4:8, I Samuel 14:41 and I Kings 8:53.
The Genesis 4:8 passage reads:
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (KJB)
The verse states that Cain "talked" with Abel. The LXX adds that which Cain is supposed to have said to him by inserting "Let us go out into the field" after the word "brother". We are "informed" by various scholars that this is the portion of the original that was lost.
The emendation is not worthy of note. The Hebrew text supplies that they were "in the field". The earliest authority for this spurious addition is Origen (c.240 A.D.).
I Samuel 14:41 from the Hebrew text records:
Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped. (KJB)
The "supposed" correct reading as found in the LXX is:
And Saul said, O Lord God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, Jehovah, God of Israel, give Urim; but if thou shouldest say that the iniquity is in thy people Israel, give Thummim. And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the people escaped. (see NIV footnote)
The Septuagint translator took the Hebrew word "tamiym" (
This method of inquiring from God had nothing to do with the "ephod". The ephod was for a man to "inquire at" (see Exo. 28:30, I Sam. 23:2,4,6,9 and II Sam. 21:1). The use of the ephod, which contained the Urim and Thummim, often resulted in exact instructions, not merely a yes or no. Using the ephod had nothing to do with "casting lots". Lots were stones that were cast into the lap (Pro. 1:14; 16:33) for the purpose of obtaining a simple yes or no answer from God. The LXX translator seems to have been ignorant of this.
The Septuagint adds a lengthy addendum to I Kings 8:53 which ends with "Behold, is it not written in the book of the song?", attaching a bit of intrigue to the end of Solomon's prayer of dedication. What book? Is this meant to imply that a book is missing from the canon? It would almost seem that as no reference existed for the superfluous enlargement, the writer furnished one of his own. How absolutely Alexandrian!
THE FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE LXX DEMONSTRATED
What are we to conclude when we encounter footnotes such as that at Acts 7:14 informing us that the LXX conforms in reading "75" in Genesis 46:26-27 (and at Exo.1:5) whereas the Hebrew supposedly errs and contradicts Acts in recording "70" in the Genesis passage. The footnote continues to say that the 5 missing names in the Hebrew text are preserved in the LXX at Genesis 46:20 where Machir, the son of Manasseh, and Machir's son Galaad (Hebrew = Gilead) are recorded along with Ephraim's two son's Taam (Tahan) and Sutalaam (Shuthelah) and his son Edom. These names have been interpolated by conjecture from Genesis 50:23 and Numbers 26:29, 35-36 (vs. 33, 39 and 40 in LXX). We are informed that as the Hebrew text contradicts the Acts account as to the number of Jacob's family that traveled down to Egypt during the severe famine, the Hebrew text is corrupt here (and at Deu.10:22 as well as Exo.1:5 as they also record "70") and must be corrected by the LXX to bring the count into agreement.
Here is a straightforward example of scholars' placing the Septuagint on a level equal to, yes – at times even above the Hebrew text. But such recourse is totally unwarranted. All that is required is to begin with faith in God's many promises that He would preserve His Word – forever! Then careful prudent examination will expose that there is no real contradiction at all.108
But even a casual reflection on the ramifications involved in accepting the reading of the LXX in the Acts 7 and Genesis 46 passages under discussion will disclose the fallacious nature of so doing. Is it really reasonable or likely that Stephen (having been dragged in before the Sanhedrin by a mob and now in the middle of a spirit filled address before the very men who had caused the death of his Lord – while speaking as a Hebrew to the Hebrews) would have quoted from a GREEK manuscript of Genesis in which five names had been added in violation of the Hebrew laws governing Scripture transmission? We trow not! Deuteronomy 4:2, 12;32; Psalm 12:6-7 and Proverbs 30:6 all declare neither to add nor subtract from God's Word.
Are we to suppose that Stephen is going to "convert" the Sanhedrin who have already crucified Christ and/or possibly save his own life by quoting to them from a verse that added five names to the Scriptures which they used in the synagogue every Sabbath? No small wonder they killed him! They would have looked upon him as a perverter of Scripture. Such an act is not that which is recorded in the account. They slew Stephen for confronting them with the person of the Lord Jesus – that He was Christ indeed and, rather than receive Him as such, they had murdered Him as their fathers had done to His predecessors, the prophets (Acts 7:51-53)! They were further enraged by Stephen's call to repentance and his accusation that they had broken the Law. Never is there any suggestion whatever that their rage in any way resulted from consternation over Stephen's having perverted the Scriptures.
But even more to the point, Joseph wed at age 30 (Gen.41:46). His father, Jacob, and kindred joined him in Egypt nine years later (after the seven years of plenty and near the end of the second year of the famine, Gen.41:53; cp. 45:6). Ephraim and Manasseh were born during the seven years of plenty (41:50-53). The context of Acts 7:14 is unmistakable – it refers to Joseph's family that joined him in Egypt at the end of the nine years, Manasseh being no more than eight years of age. Manifestly, the LXX that is today extant must have been written after the fact for Manasseh and Ephraim are far too young to be fathers when Joseph's kindred went down to him in Egypt – much less grandfathers! The reading in the LXX is grossly untenable.
The painfully obvious conclusion before us is that, by not grasping the import of the story before him, the translator of the Septuagint tried to "correct" what he perceived as a "scribal error" in the Hebrew text. In so doing, he created one.
THREE "PROBLEM" TEXTS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS109
The Epistle to the Hebrews includes three Old Testament quotations which have caused much disagreement. The first of these is Hebrews 1:6:
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
The underlined portion of the verse is the section about which the "problem" revolves. This clause is found in the uncial MS Vaticanus B (which all scholars label as an LXX MS) as an addition to Deuteronomy 32:43. On this sole basis, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has repeatedly been accused of citing as Scripture a segment of a verse not found in the Hebrew Bible. The text of the Septuagint, however, is neither definite nor incontrovertible with regard to this verse. Manuscript Alexandrinus A, another so-called Septuagint uncial (see p. , reads: "... And let all the angels of God give them (Him) strength."
This latter reading was adopted by Alfred Rahlfs (1935), one of the most recent editors of the LXX. Rahlfs' is widely considered to be among the best critical110 editions of the Septuagint – a standard. As the late conservative Christian text critic Edward F. Hills (d. 1981) has correctly perceived, if the text of Codex A is correct as Rahlfs believes, then the content of B must have been altered to agree with Hebrews 1:6, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not be quoting it. That is, the scribe who wrote B would obviously, in that instance, have had the Epistle to the Hebrews before him at a time after the Hebrew Epistle was written!
Moreover, the author of Heb. 1:6 was not citing Deu. 32:43 in the first place! The passage to which he was actually alluding was either Psalm 97:7, 103:20, 148:2, or Nehemiah 9:6c (or all four). Thus, it becomes painfully evident that the scribe who was writing Vaticanus B – long after the Hebrew epistle was written – simply could not find any of these cross references and added a portion of Heb. 1:6 to Deu. 32:43 in order to provide the needed citation. Actually, as Vaticanus B is merely a copy of Origen's 5th column, it is Origen (or possibly Eusebius) who failed to find the proper cross reference(s) and stands guilty of this modification.
Sadly, to this day nearly all versions of the Bible erroneously state in the margin that Heb. 1:6 is a reference to Deu. 32:43 and that it has been taken from the LXX. In so doing, they assert that the Hebrew text is wrong – that it is not the infallible Word of God but rather, it only "contains" the Word of God. Shame!
The second O.T. quotation causing difficulty is Hebrews 10:5:
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Hebrews 10:5-7 is basically a quote of Psalm 40:6-8. The above portion is found in this form in the majority of the LXX manuscripts that contain the verses. The Hebrew text, however, reads:
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: (Psa. 40:6)
instead of "but a body hast thou prepared me" (compare underlined segments). Because of this, the author of the Book of Hebrews has been charged with using a mistranslation of the Hebrew text as a support for the Christian doctrine of Christ's atoning death. However, such is not the only explanation for the discrepancy. In Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10, the emphasis is not so much on the sacrifice of Christ's body as it is on His willing obedience which made the sacrifice of His body so effectual. Because of this emphasis, the inspired author of Hebrews was led by the Holy Spirit to inject at this point a paraphrase/interpretation – His own commentary. The words "mine ears" infers that there is a "body" available that can be sacrificed. Thus, the force of the verse as recorded in Hebrews 10 is "I voluntarily submit my body". "Ears" has been reworded, without violation, to tailor fit the context.
Lest this be seen as unjustifiable, the reader is reminded that similar situations arise often in the wording of O.T. quotes as chronicled in the New Testament. Such freedom and leeway is even found with regard to context. For example, with no prior knowledge of the Gospels, who upon reading Hosea 11:1:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
would ever perceive that the verse applies not only to the nation Israel, but was also a double reference pertaining equally to the Messiah. Yet the Holy Spirit so directed Matthew to make that association in the birth narrative of the Lord Jesus (2:15).
Moreover, it is affirmed that the clause "mine ears hast thou opened" in Psalm 40:6 is cross referenced by Isaiah 50:4-10 (esp. note verse 5). Here, the "tongue and ear of the learned" clearly pertain to a person, i.e. a body, and specifically that person is the Messiah (cp. vs. 6 to Mat. 26:67; 27:26, 30; John 18:22, and vs. 7 to Luk. 9:51). Further, the 9th verse of Isaiah 50, as well as Psalm 102:26, is a reference to Heb. 1:11. This verse is obviously at the very beginning of the author's reasoning as he contends over the person (and finished work) of Jesus as being God come in the flesh – the very Messiah – his argument culminating as it does in Hebrews 10. This connects unequivocally all of Isaiah 50:4-10 to the prolonged Hebrew thesis.
Lastly, we note that "opening of the ear" in Bible context is a reference to Exo. 21:6. Here the act of opening the ear is explained as that of a voluntary act on the part of a servant. The deed is done out of love and total dedication to one's master. The one offering his ear to be bored through with an awl so does to indicate that his whole being (his very body!) belongs to his master forever. The opening of Christ's ears depicting for all that He is voluntarily submitting as an obedient servant to the will of His Father is, in light of the anticipational Exodus passage, therefore seen as the first step in the preparation of Christ Jesus' body for His obedient once for all sacrifice.
Finally, we submit that the Hebrews 10:5 rendering is the original wording and God guided interpretation of Psalm 40:6 with regard to its application to the central message of the Hebrew Epistle. Additionally, that as in the first instance involving Heb. 1:6, the writer of the LXX is writing after the fact. We submit that he had the Epistle to the Hebrews in front of him as he translated and that he altered the original Hebrew to force Psalm 40 to match Heb. 1:6 – not understanding the import of that which we have heretofore proclaimed.
The third and last Old Testament quotation to present a problem is Heb. 11:21:
By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
This is generally thought to be a reference to Gen. 47:31, where the Hebrew text and the Septuagint differ. The Hebrew text states that Jacob "bowed himself upon the bed's head." The LXX declares that Jacob "bowed himself on the top of his staff." This difference is attributable to the fact that in Hebrew, the words "bed" and "staff" are the same letters. Only the vowel points are different, thus "bed" could easily be mistaken for "staff" and vice versa.
It is usually said that Heb. 11:21 follows the Septuagint reading of Gen. 47:31; however, the scribe responsible for the corruption in the LXX failed to perceive that the context of Hebrews 11:21 was not that of Genesis chapter 47! The context of Hebrews 11:21 is: "when he (Jacob) was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph" – and that story appears in the 48th chapter of Genesis!
There Jacob sat on the edge of his bed (Gen. 48:2; compare vs. 5 and 12) as he blessed and adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, having taken the boys between his knees for the Hebrew ritual of adoption.111 The Holy Spirit now adds the minute detail, through the hand of the New Testament writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Jacob did so while leaning on the top of his staff.
It is almost superfluous to add, but we again do so lest the obvious be overlooked, that the scribe penning the LXX must therefore be writing after the completion of the Book of Hebrews, not before. He is using a copy of that Epistle as an aid in his Greek O.T. translation and has once again missed the cross reference. In so doing, he alters the accurate ending of Genesis 47:31 from the Hebrew O.T. which he is using and inserts the Hebrews 11:21 New Testament reading at the end of the verse to bring them into agreement. He well may have believed that he had corrected a "corrupt" reading, but instead, he adulterated and tainted the true rendering as faithfully preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever.
Psalm 12:6-7
IV. THE LXX VERSUS GOD'S PROMISE
THE BIBLE - A "SACRED" BOOK
The precise origin and early history of the Septuagint has been found to defy verification.112 It has remained shrouded in fable and contradiction. Despite the fact that the whole truth cannot be established, many particulars have been gleaned and many parts of the puzzle unraveled.
The LXX was unmistakably the labor of men not possessing that almost superstitious veneration for the letter of Scripture which characterized the Hebrews of Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would never have dared to add, take from, or alter a single letter of the "Original" text. The translators of the LXX, in marked contrast, are notorious for: Hellenizing and modernizing tendencies, simplifying "difficult" passages, altering the text by deleting what they regarded as apparent "contradictions", and adapting their version to the prevailing opinions of the age so as to commend it to the learning and the culture of the time. Hence, we find the centenary additions to the lives of the Patriarchs in order to bring the chronology into closer accord with the notions of antiquity that prevailed in Egypt at that time (see p. 9). Like the modern critic, the LXX translator did not hesitate to "correct" the record and to "emend" the text in order to make it speak what he thought it ought to say.
An irreconcilable difference existed between the translators (or translator!) of the LXX and the Hebrews of Palestine with respect to the frame of reference that each took with regard to the "Written Word". Like the true Church (in its broadest sense which includes the O.T. faithful), the Palestinian Jews have historically viewed the Written Word as a "sacred" book. By sacred we mean that the text of the Book is viewed by its adherents as being that of final authority. The status of the sacred text is fixed and absolute – one does not add to or subtract from it. It is seen as sacred because the entire content is accepted as having been given to the people as a deposit by the Deity.
The Alexandrian mind had a very different frame of reference toward the Scriptures. Immersed as they were in Greek culture, they embraced the Greek attitude of an allegorical approach toward all "Holy Writings". This melting pot of various Greek philosophies and divers religious beliefs was a "stronghold" of paganism. When the Christians initially arrived there in the first century, this allegorical interpretation methodology was continuing to develop and flourish, especially under Philo of Alexandria (see p. 4) who was at the height of his influence.
As a literalist, the Palestinian Jew was always very deeply concerned over the precise wording of the text since his interpretation and understanding were totally dependent upon it. Such was not the case with the allegorist. Since an allegorist imposes his own views on the text anyway, he would have little or no compunction in altering it. For such a person, precise wording is not of paramount concern.
The result was that, for the Alexandrians, the Old Testament (also the New) came to be viewed merely as a "religious"113 book. By "religious" we mean a book which still retains a certain "traditional specialness" but it has lost its status as sacred. This has happened because the text has been removed from its original matrix. Its interpretations and dimensions (the canon) are no longer determined exclusively by Levitical scribes and priests – and later, by churchmen and theologians.
Having been removed from its natural home and haven within the confines of the "Church", its interpretation became subject to the critics/University/Academy rather than the God appointed overseers. In this new matrix, the Biblical text is seen as merely a piece of world literature – nothing more.114 Two distinctly different "Bibles" eventually emerged, yet God had given only one text – a "sacred text".
Thus in Alexandria, Egypt there occurred a transition in which the Bible ceased to maintain its status as sacred text, deposited and lodged in the bosom of the Church. Instead, the Word of the Living God came to be viewed as merely religious text – and just as firmly centered in the secular Academy/University environment.115 Tragically, the same has reoccurred in the past 150 years and the Church is almost totally unaware of the situation.
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES?
Let us examine some verses in order to find what God Himself has to say concerning the Scriptures. In those that follow, it will be noted that the LORD promises to give, protect and preserve His Word. Jesus said:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away (Mark 13:31)."
God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. The oath extends only to the words, that is – to the text itself. He says His words (the text) SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. After all, we know that God did not preserve either the "Original" Ten Commandments (Exo. 32:15-19, cp. Deu. 10:1-5) or nearly two fifths of the "Original" Book of Jeremiah (Jer. 36, that which was given over the first 23 year period of his prophetic ministry was destroyed in Jehoiakim's fire, 36:1-2, 4, 23, 28, 32; cp. 25:1-3). Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth. Yet, as we shall see, there is more. We have always had God's words, and they shall continue to be accessible to mankind.
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever (I Peter 1:25)."
This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock, or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word – forever.
Thus, on the basis of God's sure promises we declare and proclaim that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God – that God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures. But there is still more!
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever". (Psalm 12:6, 7)
This is a promise from almighty God! Oh Christians, do we believe it? He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error – He promised to preserve the text forever!
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament as the New Testament was given in Greek and the Greek language has neither jot or tittle. We are hearing from many different quarters today that perhaps the Old Testament (the MT) is not entirely trustworthy – that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring – even to the smallest detail (see p. 31).
Was Jesus speaking of the "originals" at the time He proclaimed these truths? No, for even then they did not have access to the originals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure, then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God. Therefore, the issue before us is most grave.
In the preceding, we have scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine. Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church (especially not by unbelieving text critics). The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". Therefore, for God to accomplish this stated purpose for giving us His Word – it must remain accessible throughout time for the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!
If God kept the O.T. absolutely and totally free from any corruption over the approximately 1500 year span from Moses to Jesus as the Lord has proclaimed in the verses which we have examined, would it be at all reasonable or logical that He would afterwards have ceased His vigil over it? We proclaim not! Moreover, the Lord Jesus is the final authority on all such matters. His assessment is:
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail (Luke 16:17, emphasis added).
This statement requires re-reading and serious reflection until its full import is assimilated and indelibly imprinted upon the mind and heart. A decision is demanded by such a declaration. Such a resolution is absolutely independent of and impervious to all so called scholarship – it is a matter of faith. Yet this decision is not based upon "blind faith", rather it is rooted and anchored in the sure Word of the Lord Jesus Himself. We know not what course others may take, but as for this author – the matter is forever settled and closed. Beloved, gird up the loins of your mind. Acquit yourselves like men of God!
OVERVIEW116
The tendency of the modern mind, imbued as it is with Greek rather than with the Hebrew mind set, is to over estimate the authority of the LXX as compared with the Hebrew Scripture. Most scholars look upon it as a translation of a different Hebrew text from that preserved in our Hebrew Bibles. However, the variations found in the LXX are all easily accounted for as adaptations of the original Hebrew to meet the views of either the Hellenized Gentiles or the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, drunk as they were on the stale crumbs and rancid wine of Greek Philosophy.
Another assertion which is often offered as proof that the LXX should be accepted as viable and superior at times to the Hebrew Bible is that the order in which the books of the Old Testament of the King James are arranged has as its basis that found in the Septuagint and not the order recorded in the Hebrew Text. However, this is not an accurate assessment. True, there are similarities, but the order of the books in the 1611 King James Bible does not follow the order in the Septuagint – for the copies of the Septuagint from which the scholars quote contain the books of the Apocrypha interspersed throughout as part of the fabric of the Old Testament.
These differences in the order of the books, the various omissions and the many additions, divulge that the point of view has been changed. Though the framework and the main substance of the Septuagint are the same as that of the Hebrew, the modifications are sufficient to indicate that we are reading a translation of the same original produced in the new world of Greek culture and learning rather than the translation of a different original produced in the old world of Hebrew culture and religion – regardless of whether the translation was made B.C. or A.D.
The patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the LXX desired to lengthen the chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their philosophic concept of gradual and uniform change (pre "uniformitarianism"), which philosophy embraced the basic precepts of evolution. Once again, they were primeval evolutionist (see p. 9). Thus the dramatic life span changes manifesting the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life due to the worldwide Deluge were altered to eliminate such positive evidence which was contrary to their religious-philosophic beliefs.
The constructor of the scheme lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood. He also graduates the length of the lives of the Patriarchs throughout the entire list, both before and after the Flood. The curious result is – with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father) – that every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more obviously artificial? (see p. 10)
Again, the problem is that most of the early church "Fathers" who are quoted as proof with regard to this matter are themselves unregenerate men. Their writings reveal that they were either Arian, Gnostic, or Greek philosophers attempting to meld that discipline into Christianity (but they do not mix), or men who equated the new birth to water baptism and/or works. These men were very religious and often of high moral statue, but their own words condemn them as non Christian.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
An examination of the LXX itself manifestly demonstrates that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine but by those of Egypt. There are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin.117 This alone should be sufficient proof that the narrative of Aristeas is but mere fiction. Certainly this fact, coupled with the undeniable particular that the Septuagint contradicts the Hebrew Old Testament text, casts a veil of doubt as to whether a Greek Septuagint was ever written before Christ.
With the basic manuscript evidence that has been presented throughout this entire treatise before him, the reader should better be able to determine for himself whether there was a pre-Christian era Greek O.T. The majority believe there was, though the late text critic Sir Frederick G. Kenyon118 candidly confessed, "It must be admitted that Kahle makes out a very strong case." This is not to imply that Kahle subscribed to the present author's final conclusions with regard to the Septuagint, but simply to emphasize that concert does exist between many investigators as to the credibility of both the historicity and timing of its origin – especially in its present form.
Nevertheless, despite the mythological nature concerning the origin and history of the LXX, one cannot be certain that a Greek Old Testament did not exist before the time of Christ.119 What we do know is that if it did, little if anything is known about it. If such a version were made, this author will concede – for the interest of discussion and the exchange of points of views – that it could have been a "perfect" translation from an inerrant Hebrew Text. But surely by now all will have perceived that this is a totally moot point. As there are no copies extant today, we have neither knowledge of the content of its text nor the books selected in its cannon.
To reiterate, the actual origin of the LXX is not the main concern of this analysis. Considering all the data given in the preceding chapters from both a scientific and legal perspective, we conclude that neither side has sufficient hard factual proof to "win its case". Ruckman's arguments (see p. 19 and p. 33) are valid and should not be lightly dismissed, but neither can it be said that he (as spokesman for this position) has proven that a B.C. Septuagint did not exist. Yet, in a very true sense such a statement is not completely fair to him as it implies that for his views to be feasible he must first "prove" that there was no such entity as a B.C. LXX.
Moreover, that which he really demonstrates is that academia's long held acceptance regarding the Septuagint's antiquity as dating back before the time of Christ is not based upon adequate evidence that would hold up before the scrutiny of scientific principle or in a court of legal jurisprudence. Indeed, he has called attention to the fact that the evidence is very questionable and circumstantial. This much he has accomplished. Thus he does not need to prove, nor indeed at this time do we feel that he can so demonstrate, that the LXX is of an A.D. origin – although this is his assertion. His challenge is that those holding to the traditional position neither have nor can prove their contention with the scant evidence at hand – and to this the author agrees. But again, though this lies hard at the root of the problem, it is not the paramount issue.
What is abundantly clear is that if a B.C. LXX existed, it does not necessarily follow that it read anything like the LXX preserved for us today. This is and must be seen as the real question and crux of this entire analysis. That is, the one at our disposal would represent a very corrupted form of the original LXX.120 This is especially true if in fact the Apostles and the early church made extensive use of it as we are so often assured, for it flagrantly contradicts the Hebrew. It is of little real consequence as to whether such a faithful Greek translation had been available to the Apostles and the early Church, for we do not have it for reference today. Indeed, this paper has demonstrated (as will even a casual comparison to the MT as recorded in the Authorized King James Bible) that the extant version of the LXX is, at best, "a highly corrupted unreliable remnant of the original thereby rendering it useless for analytical and/or chronological studies."121
Moreover, such was the case as far back as the time of Jerome for when he translated the LXX into Latin he found its text so "unsatisfactory" that, upon the insistence of his friends, he set about to produce a new Latin translation taken directly from the Hebrew Text.122
Although F.F. Bruce neither agrees with Ruckman nor would he go as far as the present author in his deprecation of the LXX, he admits as much in stating:
"What we commonly refer to as the LXX version ... is the more stereotyped form which they assumed as a result of the work of ... scholars (notably Origen). Therefore, when we say that NT writers quote from the LXX, this does not imply that we can check their quotations by reference to a contemporary LXX norm (except, to some degree, for quotations from the Pentateuch)."123 [italics added]
At best, the stories indicate that only the first five books known as the Law were translated. Yet many of the so-called quotes as recorded in the New Testament come from other parts of the O.T. These other books, in their present form, are so corrupt that even modern liberal scholars freely confess to their complete insufficiency (although strangely, they continue to insist upon giving them serious consideration). How much more then should we expect Christ Jesus and His Holy Spirit led Apostles to have esteemed them as such?
Furthermore, we have irrefutably demonstrated from the internal evidence of Scripture that the Lord Jesus was citing from the Hebrew Old Testament (see p. 31) and not from the Greek. Moreover, Jesus' testimony as to the degree of the accuracy of the preserved copies from the time of Moses to His own day is irrefutable testimony as to God's faithfulness to sustain the Holy Writ exactly as He promised. Faith demands that He has continued to keep these many promises to our day; hence the Hebrew text used historically within the true Church (the body of believers throughout time, not the apostate whore of Rome) must be and is as pure as when originally given. Thus the Church's need for any ancient Greek translation, either pre or early A.D., is wholly without merit. Therefore, and even here – caution is necessary, the only real value the extant Septuagint has for the Christian Church of which this author is aware is:
that of possible assistance in understanding and translating the small number of Hebrew words in the Old Testament whose meaning has become obscured since Bible days, and
as it represents an ancient Greek translation (at least 2nd - 4th cent. A.D.), it does offer an old Greek equivalent of many Hebrew words and thus it may be consulted for possible assistance in New Testament-Old Testament vocabulary connections and word studies.
At this point the reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint actually pertain to only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Codex Vaticanus B.124 Dr. Ira M. Price, who is certainly no ally to the position and findings of this author (FNJ), nevertheless clearly discloses (as does Swete and Kenyon) that the text of all the "standard" LXX editions over the past 400 years – the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parsons, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, Rahlfs 1935 edition – has rested mainly on Vaticanus B along with Aleph (= "S" or A) and Alexandrinus A.125 This little known reality is generally concealed from the student. When he consults any standard LXX reference on a reading, he finds many various sources cited throughout the work. As a result, he is left with the impression that the LXX before him is a fully representative text of all these many ancient sources. But this is grossly misleading as all those citations merely represent the few thousand variant "corrections" that have been consulted and/or added to the main text; yet the central text is almost exclusively that of B and A.
Hence a false impression has been created, and the student is left deceived as though the extant LXX prepared for general use is something other than it is. Indeed, what real significance can rightly be attached to these few thousand references when one weighs them against the vast bulk of the c.430,000 words (Apocrypha excluded) contained in the Greek Old Testament? These two uncial MSS126 also contain Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith etc. Thus, it must be recognized that the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost 90 percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that!
Indeed, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a are the same two manuscripts which modern textual critics primarily rely upon in New Testament criticism – yet they are among the most corrupt MSS extant! No small wonder modern translations, based as they are upon these MSS, read so differently from the King James Bible.127 According to a 500 page study by Herman C. Hoskier which detailed and discussed the errors in Codex B and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph, Sinaiticus A and Vaticanus B were found to differ from each other in the Gospels alone about 3,036 times – not including minor errors such as spelling or synonym departures.128 Their agreements are even fewer – yet these two manuscripts are said by critics to be "the best and most reliable".
Under the influence of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the 1881 Revision Committee made between eight and nine changes every five verses and in about every ten verses, three of those changes were made for "critical purposes".129 In so doing, their justification was almost exclusively the authority of only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A (Aleph). The testimony of Vaticanus B alone is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the Revised Version130 – and as nearly all of the newer translations except the New King James Version are based upon the same radically different Greek text, they display like novelties.
We are constantly being told that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A are the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, hence the most reliable and best; that they are in fact the Bible. Yet the new Greek text which has replaced the Textus Receptus in the minds of the vast majority of the scholars represents the private enterprise of but two men, two very religious albeit unregenerate men, Westcott and Hort. These men based their "Bible" almost completely on Origen's fifth column for their Old Testament and on his edited New Testament. Their New Testament readings are almost exclusively derived from only five manuscripts, principally from only one – Vaticanus B. Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts are almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics!
"B" supplies almost 90 percent of the text for all the Greek N.T.'s since 1881; these in turn have served as the base upon which nearly all the new translations since 1611 have been made. In other words, they have used one manuscript to the exclusion of nearly all others! Seven percent is from Sinaiticus Aleph, almost three percent from Alexandrinus A, a portion from Uncial D (which is extremely corrupt), and the small remainder from Codex L and a few other manuscripts. For the most part, this is as close as the destructive critics have thus far come to "recovering" the original text of the New Testament. Hence, the Scriptures are seen as being in somewhat of a state of "evolution" by those who reject the fact of God's having preserved His Word for its constant availability and use by the body of believers as He indicated He would do.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17, KJB)
Remember, the Septuagint manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among themselves and disagree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text in many places. Both cannot be correct. As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God, the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (written c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original – if such a translation ever existed. To the contrary, we have seen that the proponents of the LXX freely admit that it is full of interpolations, corruptions, and that the original readings are "yet to be recovered" (see footnote 1 on page 45).
Again, the "Greek Old Testament" or LXX that is being offered to the Church today is, for the most part, the thoroughly debased and contaminated Vaticanus B along with Sinaiticus a. Yet these two Codices are copies of Origen's 5th column (or copies of copies) which Eusebius prepared for the pagan Emperor Constantine.131 Traveling under the cloak and camouflage of the label "Septuagint", these two manuscripts have been set before unsuspecting conservative scholars, many of whom are aware of their corrupting influence on the New Testament text but have not recognized the MSS in this disguised presentation. Having been thus put off their guard by this duplicity, these evangelicals (along with many trusting pastors and laymen) have unknowingly accepted them in this masked form and do not realize that the Holy Text of the Old Testament is thereby being compromised. O' Joshua and princes of the people, the Gibeonites have again disguised themselves and deceived us for we have "asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD" concerning the matter (Josh. 9).
Thus the simple truth emerges that the Septuagint in use today is nothing more than the private enterprise, the private interpretation, of one man – and that man was an unregenerate religious pagan Greek philosopher! But the Holy Scriptures are not subject to private interpretation:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation
(II Peter 1:20).
Moreover, Origen – regardless of his brilliance – was simply not qualified, not fit to the task of Bible translating or Biblical textual criticism. Nor is any other unreborn scholar so equipped. The Bible, and all matters relating to it, is the domain of the people of the God revealed in Scripture; it is solely the Church's property as are all duties pertaining thereunto. Again, we remind our readers of the basic fact that the divine oracles of the Old Testament were given to the Jews – and the Jews only – to both write and preserve (Rom.3:1-3), never to the Greeks.132 It is therefore the Hebrew writing that is the inspired, true, and infallible Word of the Living God.
Historical accounts are rife with testimony as to the spiritual condition that existed in Alexandria. For several hundred years before and during the first Advent of the Lord Jesus, numerous pagan religious philosophic cults flourished there. During the first century A.D., a "Christian" cult sprang up at Alexandria. By 200 A.D. the condition had degenerated to the extent that the Alexandrian "Christians" were teaching Mary was the second person of the Trinity.133 It was in this hotbed of heretical doctrine and heathen philosophies that Origen Adamantius drew his first milk and grew. The black doctrines and mysteries first nurtured and shaped him. As his powers and influence broadened, he contributed his own additions and greatly influenced and molded them.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The simple hard reality before us is that there has not been found any pre-Christian Greek Old Testament; there is no undisputed extant LXX known to exist today that was written prior to Christ. We confess it does seem incongruous that such an entity is so widely proclaimed to have existed and supposedly been in wide circulation around Alexandria and later among the early Christians, yet not one trace survives – not even in the dry preserving sands of Egypt.
The devastating and unanswerable question for the supporters of today's LXX is: if the Savior, the apostles, and the early church used the Septuagint for their Bible, why would the true believers have ever left it and why did they return to the Hebrew text? The answer is obvious, they would never have done so. Furthermore, why are not the early translations simply rife with readings from the LXX, moreover nearly word for word the same? Since these early works are not so constructed, it follows that if the translators of these early versions did use a Greek Old Testament, it was certainly not from one containing the many perverted readings which we have preserved for us today.
It is deplorable enough that a witness so corrupt, depraved, and morally impaired as the LXX has been allowed by text critics and other scholars a place in the witness box as to the true text of the Old Testament – and, at times, to that of the New Testament. It is far worse and less excusable that room has been made for it on the bench.
The clear truth that emerges is that the man Origen Adamantius and the 5th column of his Hexapla along with his "edited" New Testament is the "Hex" and principal human source of Bible corruption that has come to plague the Church.134 This is especially true since the development of text criticism techniques which gained full sway with the advent of the 1881 revision of the Authorized Bible (King James) under the leadership of Messrs. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.135
Since that period, confusion and turmoil over the true text of God's Word has cast an immense black cloud, overshadowing faith within the entire Christian community. A new Goliath of Gath roars across the valley of Elah this day, indeed causing the most valiant warrior to lose heart. But this uncircumcised Philistine of false intimidating scholarship and doubt is no authentic champion. A mere youth armed only with a sling and five smooth stones – symbols of faith in a higher source of deliverance, can vanquish this giant who dares defy the Word of the Living God. Is there no David among us this day? Who will go for us? Who will stand in the Gap? Who will say, Here am I LORD; send me?
Truly the need of the Church, yes – of the world – is even greater than the resolving of this problem. After all, David is dead and with God - but his "Son" lives! Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anstey, Martin. The Romance of Bible Chronology. London: Marshall Bros. 1913.
Blosser, Oliver R. "The Synchronization of Jehu with Shalmaneser III." It's About Time. Spencer, IO: Chronology-History Research Inst. (March, 1986): 4.
Browne, Henry. "Chronology of the Holy Scriptures". Ordo Saeclorum. London: 1844.
Bruce, F.F. The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1981.
Burgon, John. The Revision Revised. London, Eng: John Murray. 1883.
-------. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established. Edward Miller, (ed.). London: George Bell and Sons. 1896.
-------. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. Arranged, completed and edited by Edward Miller. London: George Bell and Sons. 1896.
-------. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. Oxford and London: James Parker and Co. 1871.
Clinton, Henry Fynes. Fasti Hellenici. Oxford, Eng: Oxford University Press. 1834.
Cook, Frederick Charles. The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels. London, Eng: Murray. 1882.
Ellicott, Charles John. Submission of Revised Version to Convocation. n.p. 1881.
Eusebius of Caesarea. Chronicon. Schone, (ed.). trans. by Petermann and Rodiger. Berlin: n.p. 1866.
-------. Ecclesiastical History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1977.
Fuller, D. O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI: International Pub. 1970.
Gehman, Henry S., (ed.). The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press. 1974.
Gipp, Samuel C. The Answer Book. Shelbyville, TN: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation Pub. 1989.
Gooding, D.W. The New Bible Dictionary. J.D. Douglas, (gen. ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1962.
Harman, Henry. Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. New York: Phillips & Hunt Pub. 1882.
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. 4th ed. Des Moines, IO: Christian Research Press. 1984.
-------. Believing Bible Study. 2nd ed. Des Moines, IO: 1977.
Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros. 1916.
Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. 9th ed. London, Eng: Spottiswoode and Shaw. 1846.
Hoskier, Herman C. Codex B and its Allies, A Study and an Indictment. 2 Vols. London, Eng: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd. 1914.
Jones, Floyd Nolen A Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Hebrew Text. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press., #2427. 1994.
-------. Which Version is The Bible? 8th ed., rev. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press., #2160. 1994.
Josephus, Flavius. Josephus Complete Works. trans. by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel. 1960.
-------. Against Apion.
-------. Antiquities of the Jews.
-------. Wars of the Jews.
Keil, Carl Friedrich. Commentary On The Old Testament. trans. by James Martin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1976.
-------. and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. rpt. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1986.
Kenyon, Sir Frederick G. The Text of the Greek Bible. 3rd ed. London, Eng: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. 1975, (1936).
-------. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 5th ed. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. 1958.
Letis, Theodore P. "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians: A Window to a New Paradigm". Bulletin of the Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies, 2:1. Fort Wayne, IN: 1991.
-------. Edward Freer Hill's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text. unpub. M.T.S. Thesis. Emory U. 1987.
Moorman, Jack A. Forever Settled. Collingswood, NJ: B. F. T. Press #1428 1985.
Moyer, Elgin S. Who Was Who in Church History. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. 1962.
Munro, J.I. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism. London: J. Nisbet & Co. 1911.
Nolan, Frederick. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament. London, Eng: F.C. and J. Rivington Pub. 1815.
Pache, Rene. Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Chicago, Il: Moody Bible Institute. 1969.
Peters, Melvin K. H. "Why Study the Septuagint?" Biblical Archaeologist. (Sept. 1986).
Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 1977.
Price, Ira M. Ancestry of Our English Bible. 3rd ed., rev. NY: Harper & Bros. 1956, (1906).
Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.). The Septuagint. 3rd ed. American Bible Society. New York: 1949, (1935).
-------. Septuaginta, Id est Vetus TestamentumGraece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: 1979, (1935).
Ray, Jasper J. God Wrote Only One Bible. Junction City, OR: Eye Opener Pub. 1980.
Reumann, John The Romance of Bible Scripts & Scholars. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1965.
Robertson, A.T. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press. 1925.
Ruckman, Peter. S. The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press. 1976.
-------. The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press 1988.
Scrivener, F.H.A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th ed. 2 Vols. Edward Miller, (ed.). London, Eng: George Bell and Sons. 1894.
Shenkel, James D. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1968.
Silverstone, A.E. Aquila and Onkelos. Semitic Languages Series, No. 1. Manchester, Eng: University of Manchester. 1931.
Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament In Greek. rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub. 1989, (1914).
Thackeray, H. St. John. The Letter of Aristeas: Translations of Early Documents. London, Eng: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1918.
Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. rev. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1983.
Unger, Merrill Frederick. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. 1988.
Ussher, Archbishop James. Annals of the World. London: 1658.
Van Bruggen, Jakob. The Ancient Text of the New Testament. Winnipeg, Canada: Premier Printing Ltd. 1976.
-------. The Future of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Pub. 1978.
Vincent, Marvin R. A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. New York: MacMillian. 1899.
Waite, Donald A. ASV, NASV, & NIV Departures From Traditional Hebrew & Greek Texts. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today.Press, #986. 1981.
Wallace, Foy E. A Review of the New Versions. Ft. Worth, TX: Noble Patterson Pub. 1973.
Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. NY: Harper and Bros. 1882.
Wilkinson, Benjamin C. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Washington, DC: n.p. 1930.
COMMENTARIES, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, & OTHER REFERENCES
Ante-Nicene Fathers, The. Vol. I. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1978 (1867). "Against Heresies".
Apocrypha, The. London, England: Oxford UP. n.d.
Authorized Holy Bible (King James). Regal Reference Edition, The. London, Eng: Eyre and Spottiswoode. 1987.
Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath. 2 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1987 (1897).
Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. McClintock and Strong. Vols. II & IX Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1867.
Interlinear Hebrew/Greek English Bible. Jay Green, (ed. and trans). 4 Vols. Wilmington, DE: Associated Pub. and Authors. 1976.
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, The. George Ricker Berry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1977.
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, The. James Orr, (gen. ed.). Vols. IV & V. Chicago, IL: The Howard-Severance Co. Pub. 1937.
Lost Books of the Bible, The. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co. 1926.
Quarterly Journal of Prophecy. (July, 1852): p. 329.
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, The New. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1949.
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha With an English Translation, The. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House. 1974.
Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament. Merrill F. Unger. 2 Vols. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. 1981.
INDEX
Provided from Yesodey Yeshiva
© Copyright 2010
Mind Changing Ministries Beit Yeshua
All rights reserved.
|