# LXX Discussion



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 9, 2009)

This is to open a thread to discuss issues pertaining to the Septuagint / LXX, among which would be Karen Jobes' and Moisés Silva's, _Introduction to the Septuagint_ (Baker, 2000).

As I began working my way through the book I realized that, apart from some new data (including mss), things remained pretty much the same in terms of the conceptual terrain. Our presuppositions guide how we see the lay of the land.

I will be excused, I hope, if I am not always quick to respond, as I have a number of other duties to attend to, which require close attention.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 9, 2009)

Tim,

Earlier you posted (in the KJV / Byz / TR Resources thread),



> 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.



"I read this article _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Jones (pdf) after it was recommended by Steve in the OP, and the above paragraph caught my attention. The claim seemed worth of further attention, so I bought the book Invitation to the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, both at the top rank of their speciality. I've just started to read it, and right away I notice that there were five portions of the actual Septuagint found at Qumram, Lev. 26 2-16, Lev. 2-5 Num 3:30-4:14 and Deut 11:4. None of these are mentioned by Dr. Jones as proof that the Septuagint existed prior to Christ, although these works have been dated and universally accepted as being 2000+ years old and hidden by non-Christian Jews. There were found and IDed 3 decades before Dr. Jones wrote his paper.

As I read further I will plan on adding to the list of contemporary witnesses to the Septuagint."​
Those portions may have been ID'd early on, but they weren't published right away. I think it's well known that the DSS were withheld (some say suppressed) from the public for quite a while — it was a scandal some years back.

At any rate, those five you mention (you left out Ex 28:4-7 in your list - p. 169) are dated "to the first century B.C.E. *or somewhat later*" (Emphasis mine -SMR). The portions you _did_ list weren't published till 1992, per fn 3.

On pages 58-59 Jobes & Silva (J&S) note two more papyri with B.C. dates, Papyrus Fouad 266 and Papyrus Rylands 458. These latter two are also noted in Jones' book, pages 8-9.

What Jones was seeking to refute was the claim that there existed an intact version of the Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ. He certainly did not deny that portions of it existed. 

As J&S show, there is much disagreement among LXX scholars as to the state of the Greek Old Testament before the Christian era. Some aver (Paul de Lagarde, cf p. 35) the existence of a "Proto-Septuagint" (Ur-Septuaginta) and that its "recovery...is the great task at hand". Others deny the existence of such a thing, and state there were many competing versions. Apart from the papyri listed above, I believe there are no other Greek mss from B.C.E., and even the dating of some of them is contested.

I think it is a fascinating study, and I appreciate the look into the discipline of LXX scholarship, but it does not cause me to change my mind about the superiority of the Hebrew text. The overriding presupposition (stated or not) of the endeavor to bring LXX studies into the criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament is that God did not providentially preserve His word, at least not in editions that already exist. I'm sure this book will be a joy to you, Tim, for it will support the view you take. On page 196 J&S say, "...throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews the author depends on the LXX and appears not to have made use of the Hebrew text".

Of course not all OT scholars will agree with that, and some like Owen and Turretin will deny it and assert the exact opposite. You will be confirmed in your view, and I will not be moved from mine. Nonetheless, the discipline is interesting, and similar in many respects to NT / Greek text critical methodology in its foundational premises.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 9, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think it is a fascinating study, and I appreciate the look into the discipline of LXX scholarship, but it does not cause me to change my mind about the superiority of the Hebrew text.



And there is the crux of the issue.


----------



## TimV (Oct 9, 2009)

> but it does not cause me to change my mind about the superiority of the Hebrew text.



Leaving aside the fact that Qumram as well as other witnesses show that there were several Hebrew texts, not just one, I don't think there is much controversy in the Protestant world about the Hebrew OT being a better translation in general than the Greek. The question is whether or not NT writers used both Hebrew and Greek translations. If that is the case, and virtually all scholars from accredited institutes of higher learning say so, then the theory of God preserving His Word perfectly in one place widely accessible, down to the spelling of place names and translation of idioms falls flat.




> The overriding presupposition (stated or not) of the endeavor to bring LXX studies into the criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament is that God did not providentially preserve His word, at least not in editions that already exist.



For the first several centuries after Christ, all criticism of the Hebrew text was done with reference to the Septuagint. This is nothing new. The church used, in overwhelming numbers, the Septuagint as her Old Testament for generations, and while the Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic texts are not perfectly the same, there was no question that the Church held to preservation. The just define it differently than AV onlies, as do most orthodox scholars today



> "...throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews the author depends on the LXX and appears not to have made use of the Hebrew text".



Yes, and this is a very wide spread, and I would guess majority view, even in Reformed denominations.

Here are verses from portions of the Greek Old Testament written during the time of Christ, actual fragments of manuscripts:

Lev. 26 2-16, Lev. 2-5 Num 3:30-4:14 and Deut 11:4.

I will plan on adding other witnesses to a pre Christian Greek translation of the OT as I learn more, and I invite others who have studied the subject to add to the list.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 11, 2009)

Tim, you say,

The question is whether or not NT writers used both Hebrew and Greek translations.​
I wouldn't deny that they did. What I am denying is that they used Greek translations if they differed from the Hebrew. If a Greek portion of the OT they had rightly translated Hebrew words or phrases, they could have used them. As Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro in his, _Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX)?_, says

What value does the LXX have for us? Just because the LXX is not the _Bible of Jesus and the writers of Scripture_ does not mean that it is valueless. The Septuagint married the vocabulary of Greece to the theology of Israel. If this marriage had not taken place Christianity would have either died as an extension of Israel’s law, or Greece’s logic. But in the Septuagint, God provided a commentary and word study….

The work of the early Greek translators of the Old Testament provided a ready made translational database for Jesus and the writers of Scripture. While on occasion they may have coined a phrase or borrowed vocabulary, the writers of the New Testament had established Greek equivalents to work with. The similarities between fragmentary Greek Old Testament manuscripts and the New Testament may well have been the joyful result of not having to reinvent the wheel. While they may not have used the pseudo-Septuagints for their daily Bible, they may well have used them to shortcut the process of restating a Hebrew quote in the Greek New Testament. When the pseudo-Septuagint fell short in accuracy, the writer would offer a Holy Ghost inspired running translation.

The pseudo-Septuagint offers the modern Bible student a rich source of semi-Biblical, theological literature. Having this large homogenous yet diverse body of literature, the student can determine with relative accuracy the meaning of words he finds in the Greek New Testament. The search facilities of modern computers allows the student to do original statistical analysis and reach first hand decisions on matters of definition and use. The student is no longer servant to the _scholars_. (p. 7)​
So I do not deny the possible use of a Greek OT portion by the NT writers. DiVietro examines a large number of purported LXX New Testament quotes as found in John, Acts, and Hebrews. The book can be gotten at The Bible for Today online store.

You further say, Tim:

If that is the case [that "NT writers used both Hebrew and Greek translations"], and virtually all scholars from accredited institutes of higher learning say so, then the theory of God preserving His Word perfectly in one place widely accessible, down to the spelling of place names and translation of idioms falls flat.​
First, this statement contains the logical fallacy _Argumentum ad populum_: the fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. Related to this is _Argumentum ad numerum_: the argument or appeal to numbers. For regardless of how many people agree with you, that doesn't mean it's necessarily _right_.

Second, I have indicated above that NT writers may well have used Greek OT wording in their translation work, but it certainly doesn't follow that "the theory of God preserving His Word perfectly in one place widely accessible, down to the spelling of place names and translation of idioms falls flat". This in fact is another logical fallacy, of the "If...then..." type, for it does not follow that the view of preservation I hold "falls flat", as I do hold to the former part of your proposition.

Nor do I think that the quote I supplied above from J&S — "...throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews the author depends on the LXX and appears not to have made use of the Hebrew text" — is, as you opine, a view "very wide spread, and I would guess majority view, even in Reformed denominations." That's a sort of radical statement J&S make, as the majority hold a mixed view, some LXX and some MT.

The issue as I see it is not did the NT writers use Greek OT portions for their translational / lexical value, but did they use the Greek readings when they _differed_ from the Hebrew, thereby _supplanting_ the Hebrew Scriptures?

When Jesus said in Matt 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...*​
He gave a standing to the Hebrew Scriptures that placed its status immeasurably above any Greek translation. It and it alone was accounted by Him as the inviolate and true text. I quote now from Jones (Ibid., p. 32),

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. — [size=+1]y[/size] — which is about one third normal height of other Hebrew letters) and "tittles" (the minute "horns" or extentions seen on the letters [size=+1]w r b p[/size] etc.).​
It was the Hebrew Scripture Jesus said would not pass away; and it was quite evidently perfectly intact in His day, He saying in another context (when arguing an exegetical point with the Jews in the temple), "...the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35). Now the LXX, or rather, the OT Greek portions, were not that inspired Hebrew and no claim could be made for it comparable to what He made for the Hebrew. DiVietro says,

....If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted [the LXX] as authoritative Scripture then the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture is irrelevant. If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted it as authoritative Scripture then the doctrine of preservation is a sham. (Op. Cit.)​
I am well aware there is a growing consensus among "Evangelicals" that we do not in fact have a preserved Scripture for all _practical_ intents and purposes, not one you can hold in your hand, although you can vaguely hypothesize it in your mind.

How odd that in 21st century America — with antichrist forces encroaching upon the church ("antichrist" per John's definition in his 1st and 2nd Epistles), doctrinally assaulting the citadel of Biblical truth — we are being told that we do not have the sure Word of God we can hold in hand, but only a theoretical construct of probable readings! And when one has the audacity or ignorance to assert one does, such a one becomes a lightning rod for contempt, ridicule, and intellectual assault.

When we stand against the humanists regarding the Genesis account of creation, saying that our world-view presupposition is that God has spoken and given us true knowledge — appearances to the contrary notwithstanding — and we believe Him over supposed scientific evidences (which are not truly scientific _or_ convincing), that is acceptable among believers. But when we assert _exactly_ the same thing concerning the inspiration and providential preservation of His Word as our Reformation forebears formulated it, well, that is like from ignoramousville these days!

And we shall see worse things yet as the darkness advances.


----------



## TimV (Oct 11, 2009)

> The question is whether or not NT writers used both Hebrew and Greek translations.
> I wouldn't deny that they did. What I am denying is that they used Greek translations if they differed from the Hebrew. If a Greek portion of the OT they had rightly translated Hebrew words or phrases, they could have used them.



But the overwhelming consensus is that both were used, even when they differed, at least the versions of the Hebrew and Greek we have today. Another thing that Qumrum helped confirm (it was no surprise at all to those who studied this) was that the Hebrew that we have standardized today hadn't been standardised during the time of Christ. In other words, they had the same situation then as we do today, with manuscripts that differed from each other, and none of those minor differences amounting to anything that would change any doctrine.

I said



> If that is the case [that "NT writers used both Hebrew and Greek translations"], and virtually all scholars from accredited institutes of higher learning say so, then the theory of God preserving His Word perfectly in one place widely accessible, down to the spelling of place names and translation of idioms falls flat.



You reply 



> First, this statement contains the logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum: the fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. Related to this is Argumentum ad numerum: the argument or appeal to numbers. For regardless of how many people agree with you, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right.



No, I didn't use that phrasing to definitively proof the point. Rather it's like the conversation I had with a man qualified to be a deacon (where we need deacons) in our church except that he holds to the Federal Vision. I appealed to him to consider changing his beliefs based on the fact that all the major Reformed denominations had looked into the subject and found it wanting. True, they may be wrong, but what's the likelihood?




> Nor do I think that the quote I supplied above from J&S — "...throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews the author depends on the LXX and appears not to have made use of the Hebrew text" — is, as you opine, a view "very wide spread, and I would guess majority view, even in Reformed denominations." That's a sort of radical statement J&S make, as the majority hold a mixed view, some LXX and some MT.



If so, it still reinforces my point, since many of those LXX quotes from Hebrews are different than the Hebrew. It's theoretically possible that the copies of the LXX we have now are the product of Christian back translation, but that's a very small minority opinion of orthodox scholars.



> The issue as I see it is not did the NT writers use Greek OT portions for their translational / lexical value, but did they use the Greek readings when they differed from the Hebrew, thereby supplanting the Hebrew Scriptures?



Supplant? Well, maybe. If we take the overwhelming Byzantine readings of, say, Rev 16:5 and Rev 22:19 among several others and update the AV is it supplanting? I suppose so, but so what? It wasn't just Origen, Augustine and Erasmus that practiced and encouraged "supplanting". Rather it's been the position of the church forever.



> When Jesus said in Matt 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...
> He gave a standing to the Hebrew Scriptures that placed its status immeasurably above any Greek translation. It and it alone was accounted by Him as the inviolate and true text. I quote now from Jones (Ibid., p. 32),
> ...



I just checked Strongs and several commentaries and they say both Jot and Tittle are used allegorically for minuteness. Many translations use Iota rather than Jot, including the ESV. It's an interesting argument you use from Jones, but I would be interested in hearing it from a modern Reformed scholar rather than a Fundamentalist Baptist. As I said, there just isn't any question a reasonable person can have that there were Hebrew texts in circulation during the time of Christ that differed in punctuation, so to me the point Christ made was perfectly clear. After all, a small difference in a Tittle can be made to a Hebrew letter without changing the law of God.



> It was the Hebrew Scripture Jesus said would not pass away; and it was quite evidently perfectly intact in His day, He saying in another context (when arguing an exegetical point with the Jews in the temple), "...the scripture cannot be broken..."



Well, my pastor says the same thing, and uses the ESV, and the retired TE who fills the pulpit says the same thing and uses the ASV. So? It would blow their minds if anyone accused them of inconsistency. I'd venture to say that at no point in history is the actual verbiage of the Cannon more agree upon that it is today, even with the minor differences in textual families. Certainly Luther held to the principle of Sola Scriptura even while doubting whole books should be part of the Cannon, and not just Revelation and James.



> ....If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted [the LXX] as authoritative Scripture then the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture is irrelevant. If Jesus and the writers of Scripture accepted it as authoritative Scripture then the doctrine of preservation is a sham.



Then to be consistent, the person who does hold to that view would have to have to accuse anyone who quoted from/accepted as the Word of God anything other than that which they've labelled the True Word of God of believing the same thing today. For example if I hold that the ESV is the authoritative Scripture I automatically doubt the doctrine of preservation. And of course Jones believes this.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 12, 2009)

Tim, you say,

“Another thing that Qumrum helped confirm (it was no surprise at all to those who studied this) was that the Hebrew that we have standardized today hadn't been standardized during the time of Christ. In other words, they had the same situation then as we do today, with manuscripts that differed from each other...”​
The presence of other Hebrew texts in the Qumran finds does not mean the text in the temple and synagogues were not uniform and standardized. Parts of a large library were hidden at Qumran. To clarify this I present an excerpt from Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, chapter seven, “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls” (his footnotes are in red type, per the online version):

_The Proto-Masoretic Text_

These manuscripts are called Proto-Masoretic because they agree with the Masoretic Text, yet date before the Masoretic Text became the official Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly enhanced the evidence supporting the authority of the Masoretic Text. Until the findings at Qumran (as well as findings at Wadi Murabbaat), the oldest Masoretic Texts dated to the Middle Ages. With Qumran, we now have manuscripts almost a thousand years older that are Masoretic. Most of the scrolls from Cave 4 are of this text-type and represent biblical books such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, and some fragments of the Law and Historical books.

The most noted group is perhaps the Isaiah Scrolls. Two scrolls containing the book of Isaiah were found in Cave 1. The first is sometimes called the St. Mark’s Manuscript (1QIsa.a) because it was initially owned by St. Mark’s Monastery. The second is sometimes called the Hebrew University manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsa.b) because it is owned by that university. Both represent the Masoretic Hebrew Text and are major victories for the Masoretic Text and the Authorized Version.

Textual scholar Dr. James C. VanderKam has pointed out that 1QIsa.a is almost identical to the copies of Isaiah dating to the Middle Ages. Any differences are minor and hardly ever affect the meaning of the text. [James C. VanderKam, _The Dead Sea Scrolls Today_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 126.] Dr. Menahem Mansoor, another textual scholar, has likewise stated that most of the differences are spelling or grammatical changes. Those that do not fall into this type are minor, such as an omission or addition of a word or two, or the mixing of Hebrew letters. [Menahem Mansoor, _The Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 74-75.] One such minor variant is found in Isaiah 6:3. The Masoretic Text and the King James Bible read, "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts." The St. Mark’s Isaiah text reads, "Holy, holy is the LORD of hosts." Therefore, while 1QIsa.a may be in error in its omission of the third _holy_, the contents of this scroll overwhelmingly support the Masoretic Text.

As close as this scroll is to the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew University’s Isaiah scroll is closer. [Ibid., 79.] Textual scholar Dr. Ernst Wurthwein concurred, calling the agreement between 1QIsa.b and the Masoretic Text "striking." [Ernst Wurthwein, _The Text of the Old Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 144.] Considering that a thousand years separate the Isaiah Scrolls from their Masoretic counterparts, the term striking may be an understatement. In either case, the evidence from Qumran demonstrates the Traditional Hebrew Text existed long before the Middle Ages, once again establishing the biblical principle of preservation.

About forty percent of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic. Further, the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique to Qumran also resembles the later Masoretic Text. [VanderKam, 143.] These texts account for twenty-five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, among the biblical books of Dead Sea Scrolls, sixty-five percent reflect the Traditional Text of the Old Testament.

Providing additional support to the Masoretic readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls are findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951, caves at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea, were discovered which contained biblical manuscripts. The major difference here is that these biblical texts _exclusively_ reflect the Masoretic Text. [Mansoor, 28.] These manuscripts, however, are slightly younger and are believed to have been written between 132 and 135 AD. Still, their relationship to the Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages is virtually identical to that of the Proto-Masoretic Qumran group. [Ibid., 31.] The findings at Murabbaat include the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the book of Psalms.

Between 1963 and 1965 manuscripts were discovered while excavating Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Masada is farther south of Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat, along the western coast of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts must date before the fall of the fortress, which place them before 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing biblical texts were found that agree extensively with the Masoretic Text. The only possible exception to this amazing agreement is the book of Ezekiel, and even there the textual variants are extremely minor. [Wurthwein, 31.]

.... Regardless of who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls [following a discussion of where the library hidden at Qumran came from –SMR], we can safely state that there is little in them that can be used against the Traditional Hebrew Text. In fact, because the evidence from Qumran overwhelming supports the Masoretic Hebrew Text, we must say the findings at Qumran strongly favor the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version. Additionally, as we have seen, findings at Murabbaat and Masada exclusively support the Masoretic Text, proving that the established text accepted as the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2) was the Traditional Hebrew Text. The Scrolls may have been concealed and hidden for thousands of years, but God did not forget them. Today, they bear testimony to the Providential Hand in the keeping of Scripture. (pp. 132-134, 139-140)​
The book is no longer available online, the AOL site having been shut down, but the book is highly recommended as a contemporary scholarly classic – irenically presented – defending the Authorized Version. It can be purchased at Amazon. 

If J&S bring their text-critical skepticism to bear on the state of the Hebrew text at the time of Origen (p. 52) and centuries earlier, it remains that there was a standard Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ, from which He read, and to which He gave testimony concerning its perfect preservation in His time, and forever: “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...” (Matt 5:17, 18). In the temple, and in the care of the Levitical scribes, there was the divine Tanakh. The question of where is the true Scripture was not an issue in Christ’s day, as it is in ours.

Indeed, the jots and tittles do have a figurative aspect, as the Lord is arguing from the lesser to the greater: as the smallest portions of the written-in-Hebrew Law and Prophets will not pass away or be removed till all things be fulfilled, even so will all the things they prophesied and typified come to fulfillment.

It is interesting to note, per J&S, how the version of the “Septuagint” edited by Origen and which became “the authorized Greek version of the Bible for the Christian church in Palestine” was produced by him: 

“Where the Greek Bible disagreed with the Hebrew Bible, Origen felt it important to ‘correct’ the Greek version used at that time by the church to agree with the Hebrew version used at that time by the synagogue.... In effect, the great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means _undoing_ Origen’s labors so as to rediscover the form of the ‘Septuagint’ in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen,* however, that goal is not easily reached. [* Footnote: A few fragmentary exceptions are Papyrus 964, the Greek biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert (see below, pp. 58-59), and quotations of the Septuagint by early writers.]” (pp. 51-53).​
What I clearly get from J&S’s book is that the fragments of early LXX mss are not sufficient for Septuagint scholars to reconstruct an early form of it, not early in the Christian era, nor before it. Which is what I have been saying: we do not know what the pre-Christ Greek Old Testament consisted of. What exists of the Septuagint now are some rare critical editions, and the popular editions – which come primarily from Codices Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus, all put together by “Christian” scribes.

Yes, they are hopeful at some progress being made (else the business of Septuagint Studies would have no justification to continue), and I find the discipline and views of Jobes and Silva to be quite instructive.

No one will deny that the LXX is rife with errors, omissions, and additions. It is obvious that the Lord and apostles did not consider it on a par with the Hebrew text.

About “accusing” anyone who believes differently from the view of preservation I hold, I hope you will acknowledge I hold to an AV _priority_ view and not an “AV _only_” – there is a great difference between the two, as I have endeavored to make clear in many posts. Others may differ on the doctrine of preservation, and we can discuss it without “accusing” and denigrating one another. At least this is my approach. I must say, that being here at PB among godly Reformed folks who do differ with me has civilized me, or rather, forced me to deal with these issues in a more godly fashion than I once had. As R.C. Sproul says, We should have the judgment of charity, meaning not to put a bad spin on others’ views or actions unless it is absolutely demanded.


----------



## TimV (Oct 19, 2009)

Another factual error in the book written by the King James Only scholar Dr. Jones, who claims there are only five contemporary witnesses to a pre Christian Greek version of the Old Testament, is that in addition to 5 fragments from the Pentateuch we have a scroll of the Minor Prophets, designated 8HevXIIgr. The copying was done during the last half of the first century BC, in other words, before the time of Christ. This scroll contains fragments from Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah.

These fragments were published by Dominique Barthelemy in 1963, some two decades before the Fundamental Baptist Dr. Jones published his work.

The dating of the copying was done by paleographer Peter Parsons, and the scroll was found in a cave that was the scene of a massacre which took place during the Second Jewish Revolt with personal letters of Bar Kokhba used in dating the human remains.

Randy, you said on another thread that Dr. Jones did admit to possibly a copy of the Pentateuch being done before the Time of Christ, but not anything else. The common allegation made that there is no proof of a Greek copy of the Old Testament in wide circulation during the time of Christ just doesn't hold any water at all. I know you have an open mind on this subject, but I will continue to add to the list of contemporary witnesses to contemporary witnesses to the LXX as I run across them, for those that may still hold to the type of thinking exemplified by Dr. Jones.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 20, 2009)

Tim, as this is a quasi-scholarly discussion (impugning the integrity of a Christian scholar is not genuine scholarship), it would be appropriate for you to cite the pages of the book – in this case J&S’s on the LXX – you are referring to. Thanks.

You say,

“...we have a scroll of the Minor Prophets, designated 8HevXIIgr. The copying was done during the last half of the first century BC, in other words, before the time of Christ.​
The dating on this, in J&S’s work, is equivocal. In one place they say of this scroll, “Dated no later than the first century of our era” (p. 171), and in another – possibly including other mss (it is unclear) – “All these documents are dated to the first century of our era or earlier” (p. 59). In a footnote on page 171 is the information you cited from Peter J. Parsons about it being “written in the last half of the first century B.C.E.” If the dating Jobes and Silva give concerning this scroll is contradictory than it is clear they are not sure, and are giving the full range of possibility.

When you said,

“These fragments were published by Dominique Barthelemy in 1963, some two decades before the Fundamental Baptist Dr. Jones published his work”,​
you neglected to mention that Barthélemy’s work was a) published _in French_ by Brill in Leiden, Netherlands in the _Vetus Testamentum Supplements_ series – a specialist publication, and b) per J&S, “The *official* publication of this scroll is by Emmanuel Tov... in 1990” (p. 171) [Emphases mine –SMR].

If Dr. Jones can be faulted for anything it would be not having the very latest cataloguing of the papyri finds. He states — on p. 8, fn 3 — he used the Greek OT scholar Frederick Kenyon’s classic work, _The Text of the Greek Bible_ (London 1975). If we can get away from denigrating Dr. Jones (isn’t there a law or something against giving Ph.Ds to Fundamental Baptists!?) to the real issue at hand, which is the state of the Septuagint before the Christian era, we will find that, yes, there were some finds of fragments of papyri with portions of the Pentateuch, and some with portions of the minor prophets. Though P&S do equivocate with regard to the dating of most of these, evidently because it is uncertain. When one reads of the DSS and their dating (I have done this online, being away from many scholarly materials here where I am), I see that datings of materials is a topic of much contention, with people having agendas, some favored by early dating, some by late. It’s hard to sort it out.

So, apart from not having the latest catalogues of finds, it seems to me Jones’ basic thesis has not been affected by the information we have been given in Karen Jobes' and Moisés Silva's, _Introduction to the Septuagint_ (Baker, 2000).

I do have a Bible I can hold in my hands, and say, This is the word of God kept intact and pure through His providentially preserving it for His people, according to promise.


----------



## TimV (Oct 20, 2009)

> The dating on this, in J&S’s work, is equivocal. In one place they say of this scroll, “Dated no later than the first century of our era” (p. 171), and in another – possibly including other mss (it is unclear) – “All these documents are dated to the first century of our era or earlier” (p. 59). In a footnote on page 171 is the information you cited from Peter J. Parsons about it being “written in the last half of the first century B.C.E.” If the dating Jobes and Silva give concerning this scroll is contradictory than it is clear they are not sure, and are giving the full range of possibility.



Yes, the authors are giving the maximum latest dates, as is responsible, and it still makes these fragments contemporary with the time of Christ, which is the point. Dr. Jones is wrong, as we do not have to rely on Josephus, a forged letter, etc...when it comes to a Greek translation of the OT in circulation during the time of Christ. We have physical, written verses from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah. And we don't even have this sort of evidence of New Testament writings!




> When you said,
> 
> “These fragments were published by Dominique Barthelemy in 1963, some two decades before the Fundamental Baptist Dr. Jones published his work”,
> you neglected to mention that Barthélemy’s work was a) published in French



I gave the title, which was in French. Someone willing to go into print as an expert on any subject would have been familiar with work of that level of importance no matter what language it was printed in.




> to the real issue at hand, which is the state of the Septuagint before the Christian era, we will find that, yes, there were some finds of fragments of papyri with portions of the Pentateuch, and some with portions of the minor prophets. Though P&S do equivocate with regard to the dating of most of these, evidently because it is uncertain.



No, there is no question among any of the top researchers from and working with accredited institutes of higher learning on the issue. You can email dozens of them, like I did, and there simply isn't any question. Some had never even heard of that particular KJVO theory and were amazed. One can read the book I've been referencing, which can be purchased inexpensively on Amazon, and see there is no question among scholars that these fragments are contemporary witnesses to Greek translations of the OT contemporaneous with the NT authors.



> I do have a Bible I can hold in my hands, and say, This is the word of God kept intact and pure through His providentially preserving it for His people, according to promise.



As do the rest of us. I'm using this thread to show that a common allegation of King James Only theory, which has been promoted even on this board, is simply a theory which doesn't stand up to facts. 

This theory is that the almost universally held belief that a translation into Greek of the OT was in wide circulation during the time of Christ, known to the authors of the NT, is a myth.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 20, 2009)

Tim,

You stated the title in French where?

You say, "...it still makes these fragments contemporary with the time of Christ" — or possibly half a century+ later, seeing as the Bar Kokhba revolt was in 132-135 AD, given J&S's time parameters.

As I have stated before, the point is that these fragments, while validating the existence of some form of OT Greek Scriptures, are not sufficient to enable the scholars to know what the "Proto-Septuagint" text looked like. What exists from even in the 2nd century does not enable them to piece together a pre-Origen LXX.

I said,

"to the real issue at hand, which is the state of the Septuagint before the Christian era"​
and you replied,

"No, there is no question among any of the top researchers from and working with accredited institutes of higher learning on the issue."​
Tim, are you talking of the dating here, or of the state of the LXX before the Christian era? If you're talking of the dating, ok, we're pretty much in the same ballpark (as you say), even if we're 50 years apart. But if you're talking of the state of the Septuagint before the Christian era (as what the top researchers agree on), what are you saying?

'Cause I think J&S confirm that the great task at hand for Septuagint scholarship is ascertaining what the pre-Christian era text was. At the present, aside from some fragments, they don't know. Among the scholars there is much disagreement, even as there is in NT text critical scholarship.

The KJO theory you speak of (you will note, I trust, that I am King James _priority_, not "only"), as it has been spoken of here, is not that there was no "translation into Greek of the OT [which] was in wide circulation during the time of Christ, known to the authors of the NT", but that we do not know what it looked like, what it said, what the text was, and what books were extant. J&S concede that the meager fragments, precious though they are, do not afford the means to remedy this. 

Jones' problem is that "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' " (p. 21).

So we go back to this — if we do not know what the LXX looked like (save for a few fragments that do not bear on purported textual quotes) in the general time of the writing of the NT, how can we say that the NT writers quoted from it, rather than the _later_ LXX editions put together by "Christian" scribes entering NT quotes into their Greek LXXs?

_This_ is the crux, and not any straw man issue that may be brought up. This is the _practical application_ of the issues we have been discussing.


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

> This is the crux, and not any straw man issue that may be brought up. This is the practical application of the issues we have been discussing.



When we've had these discussions in the past, threads have tended to get cluttered up. I thought it would be productive to take issues one by one. Jones, whom you cited as an important resource defending the King James Only School of thought said there were only five contemporary witnesses to a Greek translation of the OT contemporaneous with the writing of the NT. This is a common belief among KJVO types, and obviously important to them. Here on this forum you have referenced Jones several times:



> Another point: there are no extant copies of a Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ and the apostles, save one papyrus fragment containing part of Deuteronomy 31:28-32:7, the Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo – 2nd or 1st century B.C. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, by Floyd Nolen Jones; p. 9).





> I’m Presbyterian/Reformed (passionately so), not a Fundamentalist Baptist, but I have to give credit to these FBs for some of the best scholarship in the field of text criticism.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/apostles-bible-18828/

And by others that I won't name because they might have changed their minds by now



> Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."





> It is my understanding that the only proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint comes from the Letter of Aristeas. Are you aware of evidence that goes beyond that letter



I could fill several pages with these sorts of quotes. But for now, I will give the subject a break unless there are still people who doubt that there was a Greek translation/s of the OT in wide circulation during the time of Christ. Then, if the subject comes up, this thread can be linked to.

Next, perhaps we can deal with whether NT authors quoted from
Greek translation/s of the OT in preference to a Hebrew translation. Naturally the question of whether those Greek translations were corrected by later Christian scribes can be brought up. But first things first.

Thanks, all.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 25, 2009)

I’ll agree that Dr. Jones’ list is not up to date, but this does not mean he is untrustworthy in his views. And we have filled in the gap in his knowledge through our own research. I do think it unreasonable for you to say it is incumbent on an “expert” – better, let’s say a knowledgeable person – in a field to know a multitude of languages so as to access all available writings on a subject. This would limit investigative inquiry to multilingual scholars, and would place those of us without such skills under, to quote Gresham Machen, “the tyranny of experts”.

I do appreciate the importance of knowing many languages. Had I been able to determine my life from say, age 8, and given a faith in Christ, I would have sought to persuade my parents to allow me to learn languages (my mother spoke 4 or 5, I believe), the Biblical languages, Arabic, Latin, the European, Slavic, Asian, etc. I would have been a linguist. But it was not the Lord’s way for me. Instead I became a poet and writer, a traveler in the spiritual realms, and in the howling archetypal heartlands within the human heart.

There are scholarly works in Latin I would love to go through but can’t. This does not mean that I cannot research topics. There are works written in German and French (which I spoke before I spoke English, but lost them during my early school years in New York), and also in Dutch, but I will have to do without them. I am always grateful for translations of crucial works. No, Tim; currently the language of universal scholarship is English, and to relegate someone to irrelevance because he or she does not have mastery of foreign tongues so as to do extended research is not a valid objection. It may be a limitation, but it is not a legitimate invalidation.

But back to our matter. Because Jones’ list is based upon the work of an earlier Greek OT scholar, Frederick Kenyon, is no reason to seek to invalidate his conclusions, especially if his conclusions hold up in the light of the new information we are able to bring to the table. Be assured that I will regularly note the shortcomings of Jones’ list of Greek OT mss. when I use his work. With regard to Jones, the thing of significance is *whether or not his hypotheses hold up in the light of the new mss. discoveries*. 

And what I have been showing is that they do. Some of his data is dated, but his conclusions remain sound. There is no “*the* Septuagint” before, during, or within 150 years _after_ the time of Christ, as the few fragments (which you and I have listed in our posts, from our reading in J&S’s work on the LXX) give no indication of a standardized text or edition extant in that rather vast period. I have given quotes above – mostly from J&S – to establish this. We don’t know what the text of any pre-Christian era Greek OT looked like, what books it contained, who wrote what there was, or when it was written. It is all conjecture. Seeking to establish some knowledge of this is the great task of Septuagint scholarship.

When we say “proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint” we don’t mean merely that there were some translations of the OT in Greek, of which we have a few fragments, but that there was “a uniform edition known to the Jewish people before and in the time of Christ” concerning which we have some substantial knowledge. This we do not have. Need I drag out once again the quotes from J&S I have supplied above?

It is a pity the position I have espoused has been caricatured as it has. It has been ridiculed, scorned, and held in contempt, but it is in fact no different in its conclusions than what we have gleaned from Karen Jobes' and Moisés Silva's, _Introduction to the Septuagint_. They do indeed exhibit hope in the future of their discipline, as well they should, but they do not make claims which run counter to what I (and others) have concluded. Nor do I share their hope.

Below I will post some material from articles by Will Kinney on aspects of the Septuagint question. Please take note: when Kinney says there is “no Septuagint”, please do not misrepresent and caricature his position: “no LXX” means we have no knowledge of what existed, save some fragments, as regards a Greek Old Testament; conjecture is not a substitute for substance.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 25, 2009)

*For those wishing to continue reading the discussion with Tim, please bypass this long post, and see below. This is for those interested in details of the argument itself. I may also edit some material out of this overly long post, so if you like what's in it, copy it while it exists.*


I realize this is long, but it is for those who are interested in the topic, and is a culling of a few parts of three articles.

This entire section until “*End of Kinney*” is by Will Kinney. The one exception is where I added a footnote from the text quoted, marked by a red asterisk ***. The urls to the complete online articles are provided.

---------------


From, No LXX - part One

*2D. The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ*

Dr. Norman Golb demonstrated the fact that the majority of the poetry at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls site) was written in Hebrew. This shows that the Hebrew language was very much in use during the time of the Lord Jesus and the apostles. "Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? The search for the secret of Qumran"; Dr. Norman Golb ISBN 0-02-544395-x

Dr. Golb states (caps are mine): "We must thus observe, as a notable example, how the 'Paean to Alexander Jannaeus' - one of several Jewish historical personalities mentioned in the scrolls - emerges as the work of a Palestinian poet who took pride in that ruler's reign and had a conception of the overall unity of the Jewish nation, both in Palestine and in the widespread Diaspora that already existed long before the destruction of the Second Temple. The hymn is one small fragment among MANY HEBREW POEMS found in the caves that have no sectarian bias. From it, as from others, we may note the lyrical RICHNESS OF ANCIENT HEBREW UP TO THE VERY DESTRUCTION OF THE Second Temple in A.D. 70; and we observe that virtually all of this poetry, as well as OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE PROSE TEXTS, WAS COMPOSED IN HEBREW, disproving the view that Aramaic had overtaken Hebrew as the main language of the Jews in Palestine in the first century A.D."

In his book Crowned With Glory, Dr. Thomas Holland discusses the LXX question in chapter Six. Here are a couple of his quotes:

"For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.

"Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed that Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles."

As the aforementioned quotes demonstrate, not only did Aramaic not overtake the Hebrew, but neither did Greek.

-----------

*3. There is no solid proof of a Pre-Christian LXX*

Here are a few statements by Jobes & Silva, both of whom are noted LXX scholars and both of whom believed that the New Testament writers made use of the LXX - "We have NO EVIDENCE that any Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior to the second century of this era." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 32. (emphasis mine)

"The great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to RECONSTRUCT the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means UNDOING Origen's labor so as to rediscover the form of the Septuagint in the second century. WITHOUT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS*** predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily achieved." ibid, p 53. [*** Footnote: A few fragmentary exceptions are Papyrus 964, the Greek biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert (see below, pp. 58-59), and quotations of the Septuagint by early writers.” (p. 53).]

"There really is no such thing as THE Septuagint. If the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible had been translated at one point in history by one group of translators in one location and for one purpose, then it would be much easier to use the Septuagint as a snapshot of the history of interpretation and theological thought. However, apart from the translation of the Pentateuch (for which we have very limited information), the when, where, and who, and why of the Greek translation of other books is basically unknown." ibid, pg 89-90.

*More Quotes from the experts*

Eugene Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame.

Dr. Ulrich states: "The oldest extensive manuscripts of the Septuagint that are EXTANT are dated in the fourth century, at least A CENTURY AFTER ORIGEN, so we cannot always be certain that our Septuagint text corresponds to that of his day either in its pre-Origenic or post-Origenic form. (Ulrich, pg. 203)

"We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development – certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmonizations." (ibid, pg. 211)

Josephus - Apparently one of the strongest evidences against there being a Greek Tanach in full at the time of the New Testament writings has been overlooked. The following links are all the same text, with different style pages.

History : Josephus' writings - Book 10, Ch. 10 (Christian site)

The Antiquities of the Jews By Flavius Josephus from Nalanda Digital Library - Nalanda eText Conversion Project (ECP) 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-10.htm (Peter Kirby) 

Josephus, Antiquities Book X (Peter Kirby) 

BOOK X 

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-10.htm 

Josephus - http://study.jcsm.org - (Jason Gastrich)

Here is the quote by Josephus, Antiquities - Book 10, Chapter 10 (AJ 10.218) "But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than translate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there."

Obviously, there would be little need for such a translation in Rome by Josephus in 70AD if such a translation was circulating.

Throughout history various individuals have taken upon themselves to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into various foreign languages. Well into the Christian era, there were at least five individuals who attempted a Greek translation - Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius. Yet all five versions differed not only from the Hebrew texts, but from each other as well. Other individuals translated portions of the Hebrew Scriptures into Syriac, Aramaic and the Samaritan tongues.

When some LXX scholars claim there are a few scraps here and there of a Greek translation of "THE Septuagint" that predate the Christian era, the more likely explanation is these are nothing more than surviving pieces of individual attempts at a personal translation of the Hebrew into another language, just as they did with the Aramaic and Samaritan languages.

Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania) has published a paper about the Greek fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. How these fragments read are generally in disagreement with both the Hebrew and the present day "LXX" versions.

He notes: "The textcritical situation seems analogous to what the NT papyri have shown – that the textual relationships prior to the imagined watershed of recensional activity in the 3rd and early 4th centuries CE are in many ways just as confused and confusing as afterwards. Of course, the materials from this early period, on rolls and early mini-codices, must be examined book by book (and sometimes even in smaller units within ‘books’) rather than in generalized ‘text types,’ but even then clear patterns seldom emerge. Did we really expect clear patterns, given what we have learned from the Judean Desert discoveries as well as from other avenues of information about those textually tumultuous early times?"

Rather than assuming the existence of a Pre-Christian, authoritative and widespread Greek translation of the entire Old Testament which was supposedly used and quoted from by the Lord Jesus and His apostles (and which differ significantly from anything we have now), doesn't it make more sense to see these scraps of Greek writing as the efforts of various men trying their individual hand at a personal translation?

The sites that list some alleged Pre-Christian LXX fragments never seem to tell us exactly what portions have been found, and more importantly, whether they differ significantly from what passes as "The Septuagint" today.

The only Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures that possibly predate the New Testament writings are a few scraps of papyrus which contain small portions of a few chapters from the book of Deuteronomy. None of these partial sections are quoted in the New Testament. These are Ryland's Papyrus, Papyrus Fouad, and another labeled 848. All together they contain only part of few verses from Deuteronomy. No one knows who wrote them, and the scholars do not tell us IF they match any of the other LXX's or not.

The oldest piece that exists contains only parts of the following verses: Deut.23:24-31; 25:1-3; 26:12,17, 19; and 28:31-33. That's it!

*The Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX*

When it comes to the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems every "scholar" has his own opinion on things, and his opinion differs from everybody else's. The vast majority of the writings found at the DSS sites were written in Hebrew. In fact, in three different types of Hebrew texts. There also were writings found in Aramaic and a very few in Greek.

To see a factual and easily verified study of how fickle and inconsistent the modern new version scholars are regarding the often wildly divergent Dead Sea Scrolls readings and how they use them or not, please see my study of Isaiah called "The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco" here: Untitled

It used to be quite fashionable and widely taught that the Jews had lost their use of the Hebrew language at the time of Christ. However, one thing the Dead Sea Scrolls has done is to demolish this previously held theory. The Hebrew language was very much alive and well in the time of Jesus Christ.

Also found in the DSS were texts of several books of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These texts — none of which was included in the Hebrew canon of the Bible — are Tobit, Sirach, Jubilees, portions of Enoch, and the Testament of Levi, hitherto known only in early Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Ethiopic versions. Also found were Ecclesiasticus, first composed in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, and the Letter of Jeremiah, a single chapter attacking idolatry, and Psalm 151 written in Hebrew.

-------------

Many scholars, in an effort to support the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version, make mention of a Greek translation of the 12 minor prophets found in the DSS. However, most who mention these fail to give us the whole story about this Greek minor prophets translation, but thankfully, some do.

There is NOTHING at all in the DSS to prove a Pre-Christian Septuagint. The alleged 12 minor prophets in Greek were not found in Qumram but some 12 miles away and they were found with pottery and coins that date well into the Christian era. Charles Pfeiffer says in his book that the coins prove the scroll was written after 200 A.D. (Charles F. Pfeiffer - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, Baker Book House 1969.) This was just some guy making a translation into Greek as they also did with the Aramaic.

Scott Jones, who has examined a lot of the DSS evidence, says: "The so-called LXX quotes from the DSS, fragmentary as they are, are fictitious. They do NOT match the quotations in the LXX of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus, thus proving yet again that what passes for the LXX today is not even remotely what existed prior to Christianity."

Mr. Jones continues: "Take this statement concerning the VERY fragmentary scroll of the minor prophets found at Nahal Hever – ‘...it preserves twenty-four FRAGMENTARY COLUMNS written in the hand of two different scribes. Moreover, THE TEXT THAT IT PRESERVES HAS DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS THAT SET IT APART FROM THE MAIN LXX TRADITION.’ Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 172. (emphasis added). And further – ‘The order of the twelve prophets apparently follows the sequence of the MT, not the LXX codices.’ ibid. These 24 fragmentary columns are hardly impressive. Only half of the minor prophets are represented, and only a few verses from each one can be clearly discerned."

Mr. Scott Jones continues: "There were NO Greek LXX bibles found in Qumram and nobody has ever produced one that predates around 320 AD. The Septuagint today is in reality Vaticanus. There are 4 small texts that come from parts of Deuteronomy that they think are pre-Christian, but none of these verses were ever quoted by any apostle. I have yet to see what these fragments actually say in Greek and if they match up with the present day LXX versions."

Other LXX experts admit there is no actual evidence for a BC LXX. Here is Sir Frederick Kenyon: "A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information AS TO ORIGEN'S HEXAPLARIC TEXT and PARTICULAR PASSAGES in the other columns, BUT THESE DO NOT GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text AS IT EXISTED BEFORE ORIGEN; AND THIS REMAINS THE GREATEST PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTS THE TEXTUAL STUDENT OF THE SEPTUAGINT." "The Text of the Greek Bible", Sir Frederick Kenyon, p 35.

Now comes Brenton, who edited a contemporary issuing of the LXX: "It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 BC there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs... we must also bear in mind that we find at this period NO TRACE OF ANY VERSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE JEWS INTO THE LANGUAGES OF OTHER COUNTRIES in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria." Brenton's Septuagint Introduction, Zondervan, from the original 1851, p ii.

With regard to being able to recover a pre-Origenian LXX, Brenton then remarks: "The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about a half century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, AND HENCE THE TEXT OF THE SEPTUAGINT BECAME ALMOST HOPELESSLY MIXED UP WITH THAT OF OTHER VERSIONS." ibid, p vi.

In other words, we can't even reconstruct Origen's fifth column of the LXX, let alone a pre-Origenian Septuagint, much less a BC LXX.



-------------

[Will Kinney continued]

From, No LXX - Part Two

The LXX was written AFTER the New Testament was written, and some of the New Testament readings were placed back into the O.T. translation. This is what really happened.

*Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament*

Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18

In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a list of Old Testament quotes showing the depravity of man and his rebellion against God. These citations are taken from various Old Testament books, and all of them can be found scattered throughout the Hebrew texts.

The Hebrew texts do NOT contain these nine verses listed one after the other in any place. Instead, they are scattered throughout the Psalms and the book of Isaiah.

Romans 3:10-18

3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. "

3:12 "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

(The first three verses are taken from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3.)

3:13 "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Taken from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3)

3:14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:" (from Psalm 10:7)

3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood:" (from Isaiah 59:7)

3:16 "Destruction and misery are in their ways:" (from Isaiah 59:7) 

3:17 "And the way of peace have they not known:" (from Isaiah 59:8) 

3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (from Psalm 36:1)

In the Hebrew texts both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 read basically the same in the first three verses, and then the remaining content of each differs considerably. They are two different Psalms.

In the Hebrew texts, Psalm 14 reads as it does in the King James Bible. The first three verses are as follows:

Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

"The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God."

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

This is the reading of all Jewish translations, including the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, and the Complete Jewish Bible of 1998. So too read the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV and the Holman Standard. It is also highly significant that the Modern Greek O.T. now omits these extra verses too, and follows the Hebrew readings instead of the previous LXX version.

However the Greek Septuagint version greatly expands Psalm 14 verse 3, and ADDS SIX ENTIRE VERSES WORD FOR WORD taken from the New Testament book of Romans 3:13-18.

I am astounded that some would point to Psalm 14 in the LXX version, and claim that Paul was using this Greek translation when he composed the book of Romans. I guess people believe what they want to believe. Rather, it seems to me Proof Positive that the present day LXX version took the already completed New Testament writings, and transplanted them back into their Greek translation.

IF the original LXX translators had made their translation from the Hebrew texts way back in 300 B.C, as all Septuagint promoters allege, then WHERE did they get these additional six whole verses, and place them word for word in their translation of Psalm 14, when NO Hebrew text reads even remotely like this??? The simple answer is, they got them directly from Romans 3:10-18 AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

Another old translation that also contained these extra six entire verses added to Psalm 14 is the Latin Vulgate of 425 A.D. It is almost certain that the Vulgate translation got these extra verses from the Post-Christian copies of the LXX version, and there is historical evidence for this assertion. Wycliffe's version of 1395 was translated from the Latin Vulgate, as was some of Coverdale's 1535 translation, and they also contained these extra verses in Psalm 14. Today, the Catholic versions are a mixed bag. The Douay-Rheims, and the more modern Douay version of 1950 contain the extra verses, but the newer St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the Jerusalem Bible of 1968, and the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 have gone back to following the Hebrew texts of Psalm 14, and have now correctly omitted these extra verses.

SUPPORT FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE - ST. JEROME

In Adam Clarke's commentary on Psalm 14 he notes: "Yet IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, PARTICULARLY BY ST. JEROME, THAT Paul DID NOT QUOTE THEM (the verses in Romans 3:10-18) from this Psalm; but...he collected from different parts several passages that bore upon the subject, and united them here....AND THAT SUCCEEDING COPYISTS, FINDING THEM IN ROMANS INSERTED THEM INTO THE SEPTUAGINT, from which it was presumed they had been lost. It does not appear that they made a part of this Psalm in Origen's Hexapla. In the portions that still exist of this Psalm there is not a word of these additional verses referred to in that collection, neither here nor in the parallel Psalm 53."

Now keep in mind, that in working on the Latin Vulgate in 380 A.D., Jerome began to consult the Hebrew texts. Here is testimony from a learned scholar way back in 380 A.D. who held to the idea that the LXX borrowed whole verses from the already completed N.T. text, and transplanted them back into their LXX version.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ST. JEROME'S WORK

Jerome originally thought the Greek translation of Origen's Hexpla was the inspired version, but later in life he came to believe that the LXX was not inspired, but instead, it was the Hebrew texts which were the inspired words of God.

Jerome then began to write several works on the supremacy of the Hebrew texts over the various Greek translations. Jerome writes: “It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks [symbols indicating words present in the Greek but absent in the Hebrew, and vice versa]. The Jews generally laugh when they hear our version of this passage of Isaiah, ‘Blessed is he that hath seed in Zion and servants in Jerusalem [Is. 31.9].’ In Amos also ... But how shall we deal with the Hebrew originals in which these passages and others like them are omitted, passages so numerous that to reproduce them would require books without number?" - [ Jerome's Letter LVII]” 

In Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of 405 A.D. , he did NOT include the extra 6 verses. Psalm 14 (13 in the LXX and Latin) does not contain the additional 6 verses found in the LXX. It can be seen here: Psalms Chapter 13 - Jerome s Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) - Free Bible Software by johnhurt.com

"St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-392 A.D., he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome

John Gill comments on Psalm 14:3 - "Here follows in the Septuagint version, ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN COPY, all those passages quoted by the apostle, (Romans 3:13-18) ; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture."

The ancient Syriac Peshitta does not add the extra verses to Psalm 14, nor did John Calvin add nor even mention the extra verses in his Latin translation or commentary. The Bishops' Bible of 1568 did not add the extra verses, nor does any other Protestant Bible I am aware of since then. If current thought about the LXX is right, and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, "quoted" directly from the LXX version of Psalm 14 to give us Romans 3:10-18, then WHY do all modern versions OMIT these words from Psalm 14 NOW?

There are many serious theological problems associated with the acceptance of the idea that there existed a widespread and authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament, that subsequently was used and quoted from by the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. There are several things that smack of the serpent's "Yea, hath God said...?" Satanic spirit.

First of all, this whole notion directly implies that all the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted. This in fact is the position held today by most seminaries and Bible translators. All modern translations like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard frequently reject the Hebrew readings and substitute texts taken from the LXX, the Syriac or the Vulgate. Most versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard tell you this in their footnotes.

This "science of textual criticism" directly contradicts the many verses in the Bible where God tells us not to add to nor take away from His inspired words. "The Scripture CANNOT BE BROKEN" - Jesus Christ (John 10:35). It contradicts the idea that God gave His Old Testament revelation ONLY to the Jews in their own Hebrew language. "Unto them were committed the oracles of God." - Romans 3:2.

-----------

Thirdly, a question that no one seems to ever ask is this: If the alleged Pre-Christian LXX version existed and was so widely spread abroad and used by countless thousands, then why, after the New Testament was completed, did at least three or four different men (Origen, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian) attempt to make new Greek translations between 140 A.D. and 240 A.D.? Other editions of the Septuagint were produced by Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius of Alexandria; and these editions seem to have circulated respectively in Palestine, in Syria and Constantinople, and in Egypt. The practice of revision and of local texts is well evidenced in the case of the Greek Old Testament.

If the Lord Jesus and the apostles had given their seal of approval to an already existing and widespread Pre-Christian LXX version by quoting it in the New Testament, this would have given special authority to that particular version. Then why try to overthrow it by making 5 or 6 new ones?

There are just too many Biblical principles and logical contradictions to accept the idea that an authoritative pre-Christian LXX version existed, much less was used by the Lord and the apostles. "By their fruits ye shall know them" seems to be a good principle to apply to what the fiction of the LXX has produced in the thinking of Christians today.



---------



From No LXX Part Three

*Did Jesus quote the Greek Septuagint?*

Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2

Luke 4:16-19

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, 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. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."


Isaiah 61:1-2

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; "

Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.

Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.

Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn't do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.

In Luke 4:18 and 19, after "recovering of sight to the blind" the Greek N.T. reads "TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord." In Greek this is: "aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton".

However the Septuagint version reads: "to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn." In Greek this is: "KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas."

We can clearly see that the "quotes" from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits "to set at liberty them that are bruised", changes "to preach" into "to call for", and changes "day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" to "and a day of recompense " This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.

In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 "TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED" are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.

The words "to heal the broken-hearted" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.

However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.

Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.

A good Biblical example of God "quoting" something in different words is found in Genesis 18:12-13. Notice exactly what Sarah says and then how God "quotes" her. "Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, "Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?" God did not give an exact quote, yet He says this is what Sarah said. Do you see it?

John Gill remarks: "To set at liberty them that are bruised: these words are not in Isaiah 61 but...possibly from Isaiah 42:7, it being allowable for a reader in the prophets, to skip from place to place, which our Lord here did, in order to explain this passage more fully."

The Lord Jesus Christ combined several Scriptural ideas and explained the sense of the passage in His own words - He was not quoting directly from a non existent Septuagint version.

This would be in accord with the Biblical pattern recorded in the days of Nehemiah. We read in Nehemiah 8:8: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, AND GAVE THE SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading."

From Alfred Edersheim, a converted Rabbinic scholar in the 19th century-

"When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the Haphtarah. [Edersheim explains earlier that the Haphtarah is a normal range of verses employed according to Jewish custom]. According to traditional rule (Massech. Soph. 12.7), the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less than twenty-one verses, though, if the passage was to be "targumed" [Edersheim explains this means "expounded" by the preacher, also a well-known Jewish custom], or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists really of only one verse..." Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, 1.453.

Jesus either added a verse from another section of Isaiah (examples above) in order to make sure that the minimum range of scripture was covered according to Jewish custom, or He merely "targumed" the passage, which, as Edersheim shows, was a common practice.

Luke stated that Jesus FOUND the PLACE where it was written. He did NOT say that Jesus QUOTED directly from the scroll, or that Jesus explicitly READ the scroll VERBATIM.

The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation. He is not quoting from a non existent Greek Septuagint version.

This is another example of where the so-called LXX was translated by later Christian scribes in an effort to bring it more into conformity to the New Testament references.

There are many such examples in the gospels where the sense of an O.T. passage is given, rather than a literal quote.

For example, in Matthew 12:17-21 we read: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

The "quote" in Isaiah 42:1-4 is a quite different, but we can see the same general sense and expanded meaning given to us in Matthew's gospel.

Isaiah 42:1-2 says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Yet if we were to compare the Septuagint reading, we find that it gives a very different meaning than the one found in either the New Testament or the Hebrew text of Isaiah 42.

In the LXX version we read: "Jacob is my servant, I will help him. Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; ...nor shall his voice be heard without....He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged..."

It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is referring to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.

If I were to say to my young son: "I don't want you to play with that John Baker kid anymore. He is too rough and hurts other kids", then several days later I saw my son again with this boy and I now tell him: "Didn't I tell you not to hang around with Johnny because he is a bully?", would it be fair to say I hadn't told him that before? And this is just a human example. How much more can God vary His own specific words according to His design and purpose?

----------

*End of Kinney*

This is Will Kinney's KJV article page, for any interested: articlespage


----------



## TimV (Oct 25, 2009)

It's really impossible to debate an issue point by point when the point one wants to address is buried under a mountain of other issues. For instance thrown in among the above very long posts above we read



> As the aforementioned quotes demonstrate, not only did Aramaic not overtake the Hebrew, but neither did Greek.



Which, like the idea of the Septuagint being a myth, is important to King James Only proponents. But that isn't the issue I wanted to address in this thread. If the opinion in quotes really was "demonstrated" then the overwhelming majority of the pastors and others who have studied the issue reading this would not hold the opinions that they do. It is only "demonstrated" to be true to a very small group of people who have a tendency to quote each other. But I will resist the tendency to respond to this and other tenants of the King James Only movement, and repeat that if there are still any people reading this who hold to views like



> Another point: there are no extant copies of a Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ and the apostles, save one papyrus fragment containing part of Deuteronomy 31:28-32:7, the Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo – 2nd or 1st century B.C. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, by Floyd Nolen Jones; p. 9)....
> 
> 
> I’m Presbyterian/Reformed (passionately so), not a Fundamentalist Baptist, but I have to give credit to these FBs for some of the best scholarship in the field of text criticism.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/apostles-bible-18828/




> Further, it was proven by Humphrey Hody that the Letter of Aristreas - the only source of the legend of the "Septuagint" was fraudulent, the same way the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals are fraudulent. Instead of dealing, calmly and dispassionately, with these historical facts you started on a tirade accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists."






> It is my understanding that the only proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint comes from the Letter of Aristeas. Are you aware of evidence that goes beyond that letter



please defend this belief here on this thread, but please don't bury this specific topic under mounds of other issues.

I would like to tackle the issue of whether NT authors quoted from a Greek translation as well as a Hebrew translation of the OT on another thread. Also the issue of whether Aramaic was typically the language Christ spoke it while talking to the general public; that should be for another thread.

Thanks


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 26, 2009)

Tim, you say,

It's really impossible to debate an issue point by point when the point one wants to address is buried under a mountain of other issues.​
For once I'll concede you're entirely right. And I appreciate your passing over that bulky post to stay on topic! (I newly added a caveat at the top of that previous post, and may also edit it down somewhat.)

When I posted this remark, "not only did Aramaic not overtake the Hebrew, but neither did Greek", your response to it : "like the idea of the Septuagint being a myth, [this] is important to King James Only proponents", is rather weak. Norman Golb is not only no KJO person, but is of the Jewish faith, and the Ludwig Rosenberger Professor in Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

University of Chicago Chronicle: Excavations reinforce Golb’s contention of where Dead Sea scrolls originated

Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you not cease caricaturing the view I defend as “the idea of the Septuagint being a myth”? Are you aware you misrepresent what I say? Because even those who do not hold to the King James priority view as I do can see there are problems attending the claims made for the LXX.

Can you get past what _some_ KJO folks are saying to what *I* am saying? But before we look at that, let’s go back once again to your old saw:



> ...there are no extant copies of a Greek Old Testament prior to the time of Christ and the apostles, save one papyrus fragment containing part of Deuteronomy 31:28-32:7, the Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo – 2nd or 1st century B.C. (_The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Nolen Jones; p. 9)....



Are you deliberately choosing to disregard my response to this exact same question earlier in the thread:



> But back to our matter. Because Jones’ list is based upon the work of an earlier Greek OT scholar, Frederick Kenyon, is no reason to seek to invalidate his conclusions, especially if his conclusions hold up in the light of the new information we are able to bring to the table. Be assured that I will regularly note the shortcomings of Jones’ list of Greek OT mss. when I use his work. With regard to Jones, the thing of significance is *whether or not his hypotheses hold up in the light of the new mss. discoveries*.



Perhaps you don’t want to deal with that. Was his list complete? No. Are his scholarly _conclusions_ still correct? Yes! Is it that you don’t want to let go of this till you hurt his reputation? But his scholarship, while dated, is vindicated even by the current research of Jobes and Silva.

*To wit*: that there *is* no Greek Old Testament (J&S say we should not call it “_the_ Septuagint”) from the time before Christ till the 2nd half of the 2nd century (that’s 150) AD – save a few fragments – that we can point to and say, “*This* is the Old Testament in Greek that was current in that time.” All we have are the fragments, and scholarly conjectures.

The reason I bought J&S’s book, _Invitation to the Septuagint_, was to avail myself of new information, and the research of LXX scholars. I’m glad I did, as I can see that due to my sources my own information was dated. So we move on with the new information. Or would you rather seek to damage the name of the fundamentalist? What’s the important thing, the issue, or the attack on a man and his work?

You enter another quote (which is not from me):



> It is my understanding that the only proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint comes from the Letter of Aristeas. Are you aware of evidence that goes beyond that letter...



But I will comment on this anyway, as you seem to be fixated on it! The answer revolves around what is the definition of “a pre-Christian Septuagint”! The way some seek to define it is that there really existed a standardized edition, and that the existence of such an item can be proven beyond a doubt. I suppose I will have to enter once again what I posted above on this, as you didn’t acknowledge or deal with it:



> When we say “proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint” we don’t mean merely that there were some translations of the OT in Greek, of which we have a few fragments, but that there was “a uniform edition known to the Jewish people before and in the time of Christ” concerning which we have some substantial knowledge. This we do not have. Need I drag out once again the quotes from J&S I have supplied above?



While I am looking at your mode of argumentation, I see you constantly refer to things like “the overwhelming majority of the pastors and others who have studied the issue” and “virtually all scholars from accredited institutes of higher learning” and say they agree with the view you take, while only the extreme minority *not* within these superlative categories – “the fringe KJ onlys” – dare display their ignorance by disagreeing. 

This is called “spin”, and is also a form of the “poisoning the well” logical fallacy, where unfavorable information (be it true or false) is presented about an opponent or his views so as to bias those who may hear him. Nor is the appeal to numbers a valid means of argumentation. The issue should be decided by the merits of the case itself, and neither numbers nor bias-inducing remarks should be heeded.

The fact of the matter is you do seriously misrepresent the view I take (note: it may indeed be the view of some KJO people, but it is not mine!), and do not deal with the points I bring up, while I do respond to yours.

But others can observe the discussion, and judge for themselves. This is not a matter of AV priority, MT, CT, or ET priority, but just getting down to what we realistically do and do not know about the Septuagint, or as J&S would prefer us to say, the Greek Old Testament, and the fragments we have from whatever it actually was.

-------

See continuing discussion here: Do NT authors quote the LXX?


----------

