The Septuagint Or Textus Receptus

[ezra517]

Greetings everyone.

Everyone these days scream out "The Greek, The Greek, The Greek!" Which one can we trust? Where did the Septuagint come from and when? Where did the Textus Receptus come from and when? Can I hold my Bible (KJV) in my hand and believe and say to the world "What I have here people in my hand is the complete word of God in the English tongue without error!" Or do I have to say some of it is true, with minor errors. And the original "autographs" are true..but ..... So give me your feedback people let me know your view points!

Takecare and God bless

[James]

WHAT ABOUT THE SEPTUAGINT?
From Way of Life Literature

The following is excerpted from FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS (2005). To our knowledge, this 775-page volume is the most comprehensive book on this topic in print. It contains information that has not appeared in any other book defending the King James Bible and breaks new ground in several areas -- such as the importance of the ancient separatist versions in the defense of 1 John 5:7, an exposition of the doctrine of Bible preservation from 43 passages of Scripture, documentation of the corruption of evangelical scholarship over the past 50 years and of the apostasy that enveloped the 19th century as modern textual criticism was devised and that further enveloped the 20th century as modern textual criticism became entrenched, and documentation of the role played by Unitarians in the development of modern textual criticism, to name a few. If you are new to the Bible Version issue and want to understand it, we believe this is the book for you; and if you have already been studying this subject for some time, you will find a wealth of new things here. The course features 783 sectional review questions to reinforce the teaching. A separate teacher’s test book is available containing sectional and final tests with answer sheets if the course is used in Bible College or Seminary. Dr. David Sorenson, author of Touch Not the Unclean Thing and Understanding the Bible Commentary, said: “I have read about 95%+ of your Faith vs. Modern Versions book. What a masterpiece!! I am so impressed with it. It is probably the finest book I have read on the issue. I have also just finished reading your new book on the Bible Version Hall of Shame--EXCELLENT!! What a wealth of history and information.” 775 pages, 7X8, perfect bound, $29.95

_______________________

It is common to speak of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament as existing in Jesus’ day and as commonly used by Jews in Palestine, even as quoted by Jesus and the apostles. Is this true?

ANSWER:

1. THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A STANDARDIZED, COMMONLY USED GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT IN JESUS’ DAY IS VAGUE.

The extensive research of Paul Kahle has demonstrated that there was no Septuagint prior to the time of Christ. “Paul Kahle, a famous OT scholar who has done extensive work in the Septuagint, does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype. The theory, proposed and developed largely by him, 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 did not entirely replace the older versions, while for the rest of the books there never was a standard Jewish translation, but only a variety of versions” (Jack Moorman, Forever Settled). Frederic Kenyon, while not agreeing with Kahle, acknowledged that he made a strong case.

There is no manuscript evidence of a Greek Old Testament that dates before Christ. At best there is a fragment of one small portion of the Law. The earliest of the extant manuscripts of a Greek translation of the Old Testament date to 200 years A.D. One possible exception is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deut. 23-28. It is possible that this fragment dates to 150 B.C., though this is not certain. Thus the actual manuscript evidence is inconclusive at best. The best we can assume from the extant manuscript evidence is that it is possible that there was a translation of the Law into Greek prior to the time of Christ.

The story that a group of scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek in 250 to 150 B.C. is legendary. The letter of Aristeas is dubious in the highest degree, containing, as it does, statements that are fictitious upon their very face. “A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates during the reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus (285-246 BC), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem, who sent seventy-two elders (six from each of the twelve tribes) to Alexandria with an official copy of the Law. There in seventy-two days they made a translation which was read before the Jewish community amid great applause, and then presented it to the king. From the number of the translators it became known (somewhat inaccurately) as the Septuagint” (Moorman). “Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).Thus even the name Septuagint is based on a fable. For this reason it is also called the Egyptian Text.

At best, the evidence hints at a formal translation of only the Pentateuch in Alexandria. The New Bible Dictionary says that it is probable that a translation of the Pentateuch was made at one time and place and that the other books of the O.T. were then translated into Greek piecemeal by various individuals later. Reference is made to these books by the grandson of Siroch in the prologue to the Apocryphal book by that name. Subsequently, the name Septuagint was extended to cover this hodge-podge of translations.

2. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS OR THE APOSTLES QUOTED THE SEPTUAGINT:

To think that the Jews in Israel, with their pride of language and tradition, would stoop to use a hodge-podge Greek translation from Egypt, which was a hotbed of Greek philosophy-tinged Jewish cults, is unreasonable.

Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Mat. 5:18), and this refers specifically and solely to the Hebrew language.

Jesus referred to the Old Testament by its Hebrew division rather than by its Greek division. Following are two evidences:

In Luke 24:44 He referred to the things “which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning me.” This is precisely the order of the Old Testament in Hebrew, but in the Greek Old Testament the order is the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as in the English Bible.

When Jesus referred to the first and last prophets that were martyred in the Old Testament, He referred to them by the order of the Hebrew Text rather than by the order of the Greek Septuagint. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Mat. 23:35). By this statement, the Lord Jesus charged the Jewish leaders with the deaths of the prophets throughout the Old Testament age, and He used the Hebrew canon. Abel was killed in Genesis (chapter 4) and Zacharias in 2 Chronicles (24:20-22). This follows the order of the Hebrew Old Testament, which begins with Genesis and ends with 2 Chronicles, as does the English. The Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, ends with the prophets (concluding with Malachi) and with some apocryphal books. The Septuagint translated by Lancelot Brenton and first published in 1851, for example, ends with the following apocryphal books: I Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, I - IV Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

3. WHAT ABOUT THOSE PLACES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH APPEAR TO BE QUOTATIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT?

Since the earliest extant copies of the Septuagint are of late date, it is just as possible that the Septuagint is quoting the New Testament as it is that the apostles are quoting the Septuagint. “How do we know that the present text of the Septuagint was not that found in those Greek OT translations of the second century AD by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, or even that of Origen and his Hexapla. If this were the case, this text would follow that of the NT and you might have these translators quoting the OT quotes found in the NT rather than vice versa!” (D.A. Waite).

There is no evidence that a Greek translation was popular among the Jews in Israel as it was in Egypt and elsewhere. The Jews in Alexandria were heavily corrupted with Greek philosophy and other errors.

In fact, what we have in the New Testament is the Spirit of God quoting from the Old Testament in an expansive, interpretive manner. “Does a mere similarity in wording of the NT to that of the Greek OT necessarily mean that those were direct quotations? Is not God the Holy Spirit, who inspired the very words of the OT and the NT, able to pick and choose what set of words He wishes to employ to reveal His truth in the NT? Is He bound to His own words exactly on every occasion in the OT Hebrew text, or does He not have liberty to alter, reinterpret, add to, or subtract from that text as He presents truth in the Now Testament?” (D.A. Waite).

From my own examination of the Old Testament quotations in the New, I see no reason to believe that the apostles were quoting from a Greek translation. Consider the following study from 1 Corinthians. (The quotations from the Septuagint are from “The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English,” translated by Lancelot Brenton and first published in London in 1851. It is based on the Vaticanus Old Testament Greek text, “with some reliance on other texts, particularly Alexandrinus.”)

1 CORINTHIANS 1:19

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

This is not an actual quote from any one Old Testament passage but is a general reference to statements such as those found in Job 5:12-13 and Jer. 8:9. There is no reason to believe Paul is citing the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 1:31

“That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

Jeremiah 9:24

MASORETIC “But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.”

LXX “but let him that boasts boast in this, the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord.”

This is more of a general reference and summary than an actual quotation. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 2:9

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

Isaiah 64:4

MASORETIC “For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.”

LXX “From of old we have not heard, neither have our eyes seen a God beside thee, and they works which thou wilt perform to them that wait for mercy.”

This is a vague reference rather than an actual quotation. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 3:19

“For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

Job 5:13

MASORETIC “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.”

LXX “who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty.”

This is an exact quotation of the Masoretic Hebrew and is definitely not based on the LXX.

1 CORINTHIANS 3:20

“And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”

Psalm 94:11

MASORETIC “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.”

LXX “The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain.”

This is a slightly altered quotation of the Masoretic Hebrew, changing “thoughts of man” to “thoughts of the wise.” There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 9:9

“For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.”

Deut. 25:4

MASORETIC “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”

LXX “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn.”

This is a slightly altered quotation of the Masoretic Hebrew, adding “the mouth.” The LXX reads the same. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:7

“...as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

Exodus 32:6

MASORETIC “And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”

LXX “And having risen early on the morrow, he offered whole burnt-offerings, and offered a peace-offering; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

This is an exact quotation of the Hebrew Masoretic. The LXX reads the same. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:21

“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.”

Isaiah 28:11

MASORETIC “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.”

LXX “by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them.”

This is a modified quotation of the Masoretic Hebrew and is definitely not based on the LXX. The LXX is an inaccurate paraphrase here, as it is in many places.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:54

“... the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Isaiah 25:8

MASORETIC “He will swallow up death in victory...”

LXX “Death has prevailed and swallowed men up...”

It is not an exact quote but is more of a reference. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:55

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Hosea 13:14

MASORETIC “...O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.”

LXX “...where is thy penalty, O death? O Hades, where is thy sting?”

Paul is not actually quoting from Hosea but is expressing a similar thought. There is no reason to believe it is based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew.

Dr. D.A. Waite offers a final important comment on this issue: “But suppose you reject this thought. Does it necessarily mean, just because there appears to be a similarity in wording, and in some instances perhaps following the Greek OT more closely than the Hebrew that this is some sort of proof that the Greek OT is somehow superior to the Masoretic Text? Most assuredly not! This does not hold true for the particular passage quoted, nor does it hold true for the entire Greek OT. God did not inspire the Greek words of the OT only the Hebrew words! This is a very important distinction and caution which must be borne in mind in this matter of OT translation.”

4. SHOULD THE SEPTUAGINT BE USED TO CORRECT AND MODIFY THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT?

First, it should not be used because it is not the inspired and preserved Text of Scripture and its history and character are questionable.

Second, it should not be used because it is inadequate as a translation. Jack Moorman observes: “...the Pentateuch is generally well done, though it occasionally paraphrases anthropomorphism’s 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. Comparatively few books attain to the standard of the Pentateuch; most are of medium quality, some are very poor. Isaiah as a translation is bad; Esther, Job, Proverbs are free paraphrases. The original LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from Theodotion. Proverbs contains things not 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 in the first century AD, by a later translation (generally attributed to Theodotion, but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is nowadays to be found in only two MSS and the Syriac. One of the translators of Jeremiah sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar meaning” (Moorman, Forever Settled). Dr. Donald Waite summarizes: “It can be clearly seen ... that the Septuagint is inaccurate and inadequate and deficient as a translation. To try to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the modern versions are attempting to do) from such a loose and unacceptable translation would be like trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from the Living Bible of Ken Taylor!!” (Waite, The Defense of the King James Bible).

Source: Way of Life Literature

[Michelle]

Thank you for posting that!

[flaja]

Originally Posted by James 1. THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A STANDARDIZED, COMMONLY USED GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT IN JESUS’ DAY IS VAGUE.

Considering how much effort Jewish scribes put into maintaining a standard text for the Hebrew OT, why would the Jews have been willing to accept a multitude of versions for a Greek translation of the OT? And why wouldn’t Gentile Christians show similar concern when it came to preparing copies of the NT?

BTW: If the earliest known copies of the LXX date to the 3rd or 4th century AD (or later), how does anyone know what the LXX may have looked like in the 1st century?

The last empire-wide persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was that of Diocletian. Just before Constantine gained control over the entire Empire, Diocletian wanted to promote unity among the Empire’s inhabitants by making everyone worship the sun- regardless of whatever other gods people wanted to worship. Diocletian ordered Christians to turn in their copies of Scripture to government officials so they could be destroyed. Some false Christians complied and willingly handed over their Bibles to the government. Other false Christians made false copies of the Bible and handed them in as decoys. But real Christians refused to obey Diocletian’s order, and many suffered persecution and death to preserve the Bible. What historians and theologians take as variant versions of the LXX may very well be the result of Diocletian’s persecution and not the result of a lack of standardization from the beginning.

The extensive research of Paul Kahle has demonstrated that there was no Septuagint prior to the time of Christ. “Paul Kahle, a famous OT scholar who has done extensive work in the Septuagint, does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype.

Since Koine Greek was a universal language in the Roman Empire for several centuries before the birth of Christ, and Jews were already living outside of Judah/Judea and thus used Greek as their primary (if not only language), why wouldn’t there have been a Greek translation of the OT since before the birth of Christ?

The theory, proposed and developed largely by him, 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.

If your congregation knows Hebrew and can read the OT in the original Hebrew, what purpose would using the Greek for anything serve?

It sounds like this Kahle character is trying to justify the modern practice of using linguistic and literary confusion to disbelieve the Bible by saying that the practice is a time-honored tradition.

To think that the Jews in Israel, with their pride of language and tradition, would stoop to use a hodge-podge Greek translation from Egypt, which was a hotbed of Greek philosophy-tinged Jewish cults, is unreasonable.

Isn’t equally unreasonable to ignore the influence that Greek culture had on the Jews in the Jewish homeland since the time of Aniochus Epiphanes? The Jews of Judah/Judea had not lived in cultural/linguistic isolation for quite a while by the time Christ was born.

And if the Jews of Judah/Judea were so attached to their Hebrew, why do the Gospels repeatedly point out when Aramaic was used?

Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Mat. 5:18), and this refers specifically and solely to the Hebrew language.

So there is no such thing as figurative/symbolic language?

In Luke 24:44 He referred to the things “which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning me.” This is precisely the order of the Old Testament in Hebrew, but in the Greek Old Testament the order is the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as in the English Bible.

If there is no standard Greek text for the OT, how can there be a standard order in the Greek text?

Since the earliest extant copies of the Septuagint are of late date,

If there was no Greek translation for the OT until a late date, how did Gentile Christians, who most certainly did not speak Hebrew, study the OT if they didn’t have the OT in a language that they could understand? Even before the Resurrection there were Gentile Christians and after the failure of the Jewish revolt of 70 AD the Christian Church rapidly lost track of its Jewish/Hebrew origins. Are we supposed to believe that Gentile Christians went centuries without being able to read the OT because no one cared to translate it?

it is just as possible that the Septuagint is quoting the New Testament as it is that the apostles are quoting the Septuagint. “How do we know that the present text of the Septuagint was not that found in those Greek OT translations of the second century AD by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, or even that of Origen and his Hexapla.

I was under the impression that Origen was not a Christian and was labeled as a heretic in his own lifetime. Why should we expect him to not distort the Bible?

There is no evidence that a Greek translation was popular among the Jews in Israel as it was in Egypt and elsewhere. The Jews in Alexandria were heavily corrupted with Greek philosophy and other errors.

You mean that all of the Maccabees and Herod too were all Hebrew-speaking devout Jews?

First, it should not be used because it is not the inspired and preserved Text of Scripture and its history and character are questionable.

By whose standards?

Second, it should not be used because it is inadequate as a translation.

By whose standards?

[Edward]

A couple of notes to help confuse things further... ;-)

The Alexandrian viewpoint is essentially the same as the dominant viewpoint of Pharisees in Palestine. Rabbis of Jewish lands were at least as Hellenist as they were Hebrew, and quite likely more Hellenist -- not in their general outlook, but in the fundamental assumptions of logic, versus linear and analytical logic. How easily people forget Hebrew is an Eastern language, built on an Eastern outlook, and is typically understood as "mystical," with a preference to symbolic logic. It assumes a Holy Spirit who operates on a level above human logic, and no one could possibly explain it clinically. It assumes we must use parabolic language because nothing else will do. Hellenism is a very human-centered set of assumptions, among them that man is fully capable of understanding everything logically. A true Hebrew would assume some things would never be understood, yet would remain obligatory.

In Hebrew, everything is personal. Nothing can be conceived as static and separate from a person. Truth in Hebrew is whatever God says, whenever He says it. The nature of truth is an aspect of God personally, regardless of any human ability to make it seem consistent. This isn't some silly liberal gibberish; this is fact. The very notion of logical consistency as an external reality is radically different from what they would expect. There isn't room here for me to even outline all the implications of the vast gulf between Hellenistic Jews in 1st Century Jerusalem and the original Hebrew outlook Jesus kept injecting into His debates with the leaders of His day.

A critical element of this is noting our obsessions with precision in translation would have appeared comical to Hebrew people. Yes, they did revere the very letters of their ancient Hebrew texts, but hardly blinked at the idea of giving a loose translation, or even a loose quotation in the same language. You would never catch anyone from ancient Hebrew culture saying: "The text says what it means, and means what it says." They would be the last to press for anything resembling literalism.

As long as discussions about the biblical text ignore this huge difference in viewpoint, and as long as people keep projecting their unquestioned assumptions of logic back onto the biblical characters, there will hardly be any approach to an actual understanding of what Scripture requires of us in all this debate. The written Word of God is wholly binding on human thought and conduct. If we don't understand the nature of the message, all technical discussion of precision in translation and text will hardly help us much. If you can't look at the world through Jesus' Hebrew eyes, you can't think His thoughts. The difference between in how I view these things and how I understand most of the members here view things keeps me at arm's length, and is why I seldom visit.

Having said that, I agree with some of what both flaja and James have to say here. The LXX is at best a convenient label for an assumption about a Greek translation, one which we all know is far wide of the typical Hebrew fidelity, simply because it was born of a Hellenist view of fidelity -- measurable, quantifiable, static, and within reach of human logic -- all of which assumes the absence of a mystical spiritual element so utterly necessary to make sense of God.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Edward You would never catch anyone from ancient Hebrew culture saying: "The text says what it means, and means what it says."

Your documentation for this is what? Why would the Jews have been so anxious to preserve every jot and tittle of a written text if that text did not have a definite meaning?

If inexact quotes and loose translations are OK, then you are free to make up what the Bible says as you go along and the Bible can then support whatever ungodly purpose you desire.