#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

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.


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 God or Christ Himself refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us an explanation of the sense of the passage, 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 refering 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?

Here are a few more examples of the Holy Ghost expanding, explaining, amplifying, and applying His words as the occasion requires.

Luke 7:27 "This is he of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before THEE." Yet when we look at Malachi 3:1 the text says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ME." The LXX reads differently with: "and he SHALL SURVEY THE way before MY FACE." (kai epiblepsetai odon pro proswpou mou).

An interesting case is cited by our Lord in Luke 19:46 where He says: "It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves." At first glance this would seem to be a single Scripture taken from the Old Testament, yet in fact the first part is a revised reference to Isaiah 56:7 where God says: "for mine house SHALL BE CALLED an house of prayer for all people", and the second is a revised application from Jeremiah 7:11 where the prophet asks: "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?". Yet Christ combines two different quotes from two different books into a new saying and says "It is written".

There are many more like this, but one more should suffice to see that God can revise His "quotes" anyway He wants to. In John 12:39-41 the apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, writes: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias SAID again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. THESE THINGS SAID ESAIAS when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

Yet when we look at the passage in Isaiah 6:9-10 we read God telling Isaiah: "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not: and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

The "quote" of what Isaiah "said" is quite different. Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.


Will Kinney

 

Will said "Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses."

The problem for you is that the KJV says it was "written". Jesus himself called in "scripture", which by definition is the word of God in written form (as opposed to spoken form). If you explanation is correct, than Luke was in error for saying it was "written" and Jesus was in error for saying it was "scripture".

Was Jesus reading the Septuagint? Probably not. But it doesn't matter. Whatever he was reading, whatever was "written" and was "scripture", is different than what the KJV has for that passage. Onlyism is disproven, and within the KJV itself no less. QED.

 

Matthew 5:18 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.

A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, also called a yodh. A tittle is the smallest part of a Hebrew letter, something like the crossing of a t. These terms refer exclusively to the Hebrew language, and cannot refer to any other language. Christ was referring to the Hebrew language when He made that statement. If this verse is to be used for preservation of the Word of God, it is the strongest argument ever that the Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew language and in none other--a direct blow to KJVO ism.
DHK

 

When all is said and done, with all this dialogue, nobody is none the wiser. Everyone just argues on and on with their little ideas and absolutely nothing is getting accomplished. The only people who have done their homework and know what they're talking about is Will and Altalux, but they are addressing a bunch who have scales on their eyes and have their ears blocked.
At the judgement seat of Christ, some may be very surprized on what truly was wood, hay or stubble.

 

So you would say taking things out of context and misrepresenting two authors is doing your homework?
Did you check out the sources he gave in Liddell and Scott along with Kittel. Those were totally lifted out of context and applied to what he believed not what the authors wrote trying to get the authors to say what they did not.

Now you call that homework.

 

Did you know that Jesus Christ used a variety of translations of the Old Testament in the quotes we have of His?

Look at the last phrase in Mark 4:12, "they should be forgiven." We have here a direct quote from Christ that is not found in the Old Testament as we have it. The proto-Masoretic Old Testament of Isaiah 6:10 translates, "healed."

The evidence of this change is right there in the KJV. It is not part of a "conspiracy" to "corrupt" the word of God as many claim of differing versions and it is a direct quote from Jesus.

That is just one example. There are many other New Testament quotes that align more with the Septuagint or the Aramaic than the Masoretic. Do you feel Jesus was in error by not staying with the text upon which the KJV translators based their rendering? Or should the KJV translators have changed their translation to match the words of Christ? Or did they, perhaps, recognize that it was not that much of an issue? </font>[/QUOTE]Clint, things like this have been pointed out to michelle time and time again, yet she still holds to a vision that even the KJV translators didn't hold to, nor would they now endorse. She says that all the versions before the KJV in English were the inerrant, perfect Word of God, and that all the versions of the KJV are the Word of God, so it is therefore doublespeak from her yet again. Circular round and round reasoning is all she knows, not being able to prove in any way shape or fashion that the Bible teaches one version onlyism.

AVL1984

 

Michelle, I and many others on this forum and on the Bible versions forum have shown evidence of the KJVO position being a cultic position to have. I do not wear these imaginary glasses you have tried to attribute to me that supposedly take away the Holy Spirits ability to work in ones life (which brings you very close to putting words in the Holy Spirits mouth, which is a sin). You keep referring to labels, but refuse to acknowledge that you yourself have labeled people as uneducated, blinded, etc. This is the epitomy of hypocrisy in action. The division comes from people such as yourself whom try to force people to believe in a cultic system of KJV Onlyism which is far from Biblically correct, which again, even the translators OF the KJV recognized. You again in your statement above imply that people who use MV's are followers of man and not followers of God, yet you have no proof of that and are elevating yourself to the position of the Holy Spirit in saying so, nearly stating you can read their hearts and minds. You really need to change your tag line, Michelle, because you have NO LOVE in Christ Jesus for anyone who disputes what you try to shovel off on others.

AVL1984

 

Michelle, you yourself have implied so many times. Not only that you have put yourself into the position of the Holy Spirit judging not only their ability to comprehend, but follow the Lord. You're truly one twisted young woman. I am far from liberal, and I know many who use MV's who are closer to the Lord than you will ever be with your false allegations, etc. There is no error in a person using the MV's. The only people who would say that are the people who are drawn into the cultic position of the KJVO's.

AVL1984

 

The above assertions by you are false, Michelle. You have libelled others on many occasions. I have not libelled you, but have pointed out the inconsistancy of your position over and over. I look in the mirror every day, dear, and I know for a fact that having once been in the KJVO position like you are now, it is very hard to see the facts of the cultic position this view holds. Been there, done that. Definitely won't be going back to that position as it is not scriptural. As for your long rants of scripture, Michelle, they DO NOT support your position of a one version only system. That is my point. They might in your twisted view of the scriptures, but, then the Mormon's believe their view is correct, too, and they are every bit as much a cultish system.

AVL1984

 

Again, you put yourself in the position of the Holy Spirit implying I have no eyes to see. And again, I state that I have been in your position and know for a fact it is unbiblical. It has been pointed out to you many times on the Bible version forums, and you couldn't cut it there, so you ran down here. NOWHERE in the KJV, MV's or anywhere else is a one version system shown or advocated. My eyes are quite well for seeing what the Lord wants. I'm not the one blinded by a cultic system.

AVL1984

 

Michelle, as far as you quote, yes, you have come close to making that same statement, and it is implied in many of your posts. It has been condensed by many others to show just how ludicrous your position is.

AVL1984

 

Natters wrote: "The problem for you is that the KJV says it was "written". Jesus himself called in "scripture", which by definition is the word of God in written form (as opposed to spoken form). If you explanation is correct, than Luke was in error for saying it was "written" and Jesus was in error for saying it was "scripture".
Was Jesus reading the Septuagint? Probably not. But it doesn't matter. Whatever he was reading, whatever was "written" and was "scripture", is different than what the KJV has for that passage. Onlyism is disproven, and within the KJV itself no less."

Natters, how logical is this argument you present? If the KJB is disproven as being true Scripture, then so also are your "Probably Close Enuf Versions" because they also say "the place where it was written" and call it "Scripture", and yet they too differ the one from the other.

In your misguided zeal to disprove the KJB as being the true word of God, you use arguments like this that destroy even your own favorite versions; then sitting in the dust surrounded by the ruins of your crumbled edifices, you proudly declare victory.

You guys are amusing to watch.

 

It is not about trying to dectroy and particular translatiob but about the nonsensical myth of KJVO that is heresy. That heresy does nothing but destroy. If it was ful of life it would produce chruches ful of radical believers but instead all I have seen it produce is death.

When Jesus was living there were several translations. Never once did he or any other apostle make an issue of it.

The real issue is hwo's living for Jesus Christ becuase of our life not how many dead we produce.

If Henry Ford were living today would he be happiest with one good running Ford or 1000 in the junk yard?

 

Debating you was amusing.

Jason

 

Hi D, you make a great point but fail to see the significance of it.

You said: Matthew 5:18 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.

A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, also called a yodh. A tittle is the smallest part of a Hebrew letter, something like the crossing of a t. These terms refer exclusively to the Hebrew language, and cannot refer to any other language. Christ was referring to the Hebrew language when He made that statement. If this verse is to be used for preservation of the Word of God, it is the strongest argument ever that the Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew language and in none other--a direct blow to KJVO ism.
DHK "


D, the King James Bible is translated in the Old Testament solely from the Hebrew texts, wheras the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman all frequently reject the Hebrew readings. They are bogus bibles.

An accurate translation is just as authoritative and inspired (derivative inspiration) as the inspired copies from which it was translated.

You have the right idea to begin with, but you draw the wrong conclusion.

So, do we all need to learn Hebrew in order to have an infallible Old Testament? Apparently you seem to think we also need to learn Greek and then have the correct Greek texts in order to have an inerrant New Testament.

Boy, it seems that according to your views fewer and fewer people in the world have access to this Bible of yours, and then you criticize the KJB believer for thinking the best Bible is in the English language which is read by millions of people. How consistent is that?

Will K

 

Clint - " No one on this thread claimed that the reading was being taken from the LXX. You should modify your essays to suit the purpose."


Clint, twice in this immediate context both Michelle and natters made mention of the Septuagint. So I included this common idea in my response.


Sister Michelle: "Assuming this proves THE SEPTUAGINT, and that Jesus Christ himself in these type of passages is condoning versions that have differences in them, IS SPECULATION at best, and in direct CONTRADICTION of scripture truth themselves."


Natters -"This is not discussed to prove THE SEPTUAGINT or anything, but only to prove that what the KJV calls "scripture" and was "written" is different than what the KJV itself has.


Clint - "Please show me the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" in the Old Testament.

This may be your weakest argument yet, Will. We will await your answer. Oh! That's right, you don't answer questions that jeapordize your position! We'll stop holding our breath.

Clint, the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" is not in the Hebrew text. The Lord is expounding, amplifying and explaining the meaning of the passage as He sees fit. He is the author of Scripture and has every right to do this.