October 30, 2007 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

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).