Home » Posts tagged 'LXX'
Tag Archives: LXX
God’s Perfect Preservation of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and the King James Version (Part Two)
Most talk about the text of the Bible focuses on the New Testament. The Old Testament is much larger and yet there is less variation in extant copies of the Old Testament than the New. As well, more Christian scholars know the Greek than the Hebrew, and when they know the Hebrew, they also know the Greek better.
Scripture teaches the preservation of all of scripture in the original languages, the languages in which scripture was written. Even if the conversation mainly centers on the New Testament, God preserved the Old Testament perfectly too. In recent days, some are talking more about the Old Testament again. Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, addressed the preservation of the Old Testament and the variation of a Hebrew critical text.
No Translation Above Preserved Hebrew Text
I think you would be right to detect hypocrisy in many of those who wish to alter the preserved Hebrew text of the Old Testament with a Greek, Latin, or Syriac translation. Not necessarily in this order, but, first, it flies in the face of “manuscript evidence.” It’s not because there isn’t evidence — around three hundred extant ancient handwritten copies of the Hebrew Masoretic text exist. Second, critical text advocates savagely attack those who identify preservation in a translation. I don’t believe God preserved His words in a translation, but they actually do in their underlying Old Testament text for the modern versions.
In a related issue, the same critical text supporters most often say that Jesus quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, “the Septuagint.” As someone reads the references or mentions of the Old Testament by Jesus in the Gospels, he will notice that there are not exact quotations of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Even when you compare the English translation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament passage and compare it with the English translation of the Greek in the New Testament, they won’t match exactly most of the time. What was happening in these passages? Is this evidence that we don’t have an identical text to them?
View of the Septuagint
It is a popular and false notion that Christians in the first century used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called the Septuagint, as their scriptures, so they quoted from it. All the New Testament “quotations” of the Old Testament have at least minor variants from the various editions of the Septuagint in all but one place: a quote in Matthew 21:16 is identical to a part of Psalm 8:3 in Ralf’s edition of the Septuagint.
When you read the New Testament and find the 320 or so usages or allusions to the Old Testament in it, you will see that they are not identical. Some might explain that as a translation of a translation, that is, the Old Testament, Hebrew to English, and the New Testament, Hebrew to Greek to English, differences will occur by a sheer dissipation of a third language. Online and in other locations you can compare an English translation of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament with an English translation of one edition of the Septuagint and one of the Hebrew Masoretic to compare the latter two with the first.
I see value in the Septuagint, whichever edition, since there are several. Those various editions give larger sample sizes of Greek usage for meaning and syntax for understanding the Greek biblical language of the New Testament. They can help with the study of both the Old and New Testaments. As an example, Jewish translators translated the Old Testament Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 parthenos, which is the specific Greek word for “virgin,” not “young woman.” All of this answers the question, “How would people have understood the word, phrase, or sentence who heard it in that day?”
What Did New Testament Authors Do?
The mentions of the Old Testament in the New are most often not verbatim quotations of the Hebrew. That’s not what the New Testament authors were doing. They were serious about the preservation of the Old Testament as seen in the regular use of the words, “it is written.” This is a perfect passive verb that says passage continues written. The writing of the passage was complete with the results of that writing ongoing. This communicates the preservation of scripture.
The New Testament authors knew the Old Testament well, so they didn’t need a Greek translation of it. The New Testament writers could do their own translation of a Hebrew text. They most often, however, did a “targum,” some quoting and some paraphrasing from memory and also deliberately using the words of the text to make their theological or practical point from the Bible. Preachers continue to do this today, sometimes quoting directly from a translation and other times making an allusion or reference to the passage.
Reliance on the Septuagint?
What I’m explaining about “targumming” is the explanation of John Owen and others through history as to the variation between the Old Testament Hebrew and the Greek or English translation. Some references to the Old Testament are closer to an edition of the Septuagint than the Hebrew Masoretic text, sometimes almost identical. Were the scriptural authors relying on a Septuagint, which predated the New Testament?
If New Testament authors relied on what we know of the Greek Septuagint today, then they depended on a corrupt edition or version of scripture. Some give this as an argument for the validation of a corrupt text. They say that God doesn’t care about the very words of the Bible, just its message. Instead, God kept the message very intact, but not the exact words. In addition, they often say that the Septuagint is evidence for the acceptance of something short of a perfect text. These approaches to the Septuagint are mere theories founded on faulty presuppositions.
John Owen also referred to this similarity between the usages of the New Testament authors with a translation of the Greek Old Testament, such as the Septuagint. He said that the likely explanation was that Christians adapted the text of the Septuagint to the New Testament quotations out of respect of Jesus and the New Testament authors. Others have echoed that down through history. Owen wasn’t alone. It is a possibility.
John Owen
In Owen’s first volume in his three thousand page Hebrews commentary, he spends a few pages speaking on the Septuagint and the concept of quotations from it. Owen writes (pp. 67-68):
Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. . . . [T]his boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. . . .
[I]t is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it.
And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.
Theories of Men Versus the Promises of God
Theories of men should not upend or variate the promises of God. God’s promises stand. He promised to preserve the original language text. We should believe it. No one should believe that Jesus or one of the apostles quoted from a corrupted Greek translation. That contradicts the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Other answers exist.
Whatever position someone takes on the Septuagint, it should not contradict what God already said He would do. There is no authority to historical theories based on no or tenuous evidence at best. The best explanation is one that continues a high view of scripture. One should not rely on one of the editions of the Greek Septuagint for deciding what scripture is. It should not correct the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Instead, everyone should believe what God said He would do and acknowledge its fulfillment in history.
King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism
Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:
Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.
No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6
Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.
Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.
Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX
In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.
Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.
Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?
1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.
2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.
3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.
–TDR
Recent Comments