DocCas
New Member
Facts concerning the "Septuagint."<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The "Septuagint Papyri" is a collection of about 30 papyrus fragments bearing a portion of the OT in Greek. All but one of these were written between 150 and 750 AD. The exception is the Ryland Papyrus #458, dated about 150 BC, which contains portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy in Greek.<LI>The earliest existing manuscripts of the "Septuagint" are Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex alexandrinus (A), and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). There were written between 350 and 500 AD.<LI>The 5th column of what is purported to be Origen's Hexapla is what is generally called the "Septuagint" today.<LI>The "Septuagint" is the official OT of the Greek Orthodox Church.[/list]Arguments For the Septuagint.<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Its existance is almost universally accepted by "Christian" scholarship.<LI>Even the translators of the KJV made reference to the "Septuagint" in their preface.<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by manuscript evidence - the John Rylands Papyrus (c. 150 BC) and the great Codices of the "Christian Church."<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by several of the Dead Sea Scroll readings.<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by some ancient authorities such as Jesus, son of Sirach (132 BC) speaks of a Greek version of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books 'uttered in Hebrew and translated into another toungue'. And Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD) refers to the Letter of Aristeas, and quotes from a Greek OT. He does this around 40 AD. He is a Jewish Gnostic philosopher. Josephus (37-100 AD) also refers to the Letter of Aristeas (around 90 AD) and uses a Greek translation of the OT. He is a Jewish Historian. Eusebius (160-339 AD) cites the writings of a BC Aristobulus who mentions the translating of the Torah into Greek. Eusebius was a "Christian" historian.<LI>There is no disputing the fact that many Jews lived in Egypt from the days of Jeremiah (see 47:7), and that Alexandria became an influential Greek center with a large Jewish population after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. Thus it would be logical to expect a translation of the OT into a more fimiliar tongue, just as the Targums were Aramaic translations for the Jews in Babylonia.<LI>Even though the Letter of Aristeas is legendary, its existance strongly suggests that an authorized translation of the Hebrew into Greek did occur.[/list]Arguments Against a "Septuagint."<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>God committed the preservation of the OT to the Jews (Romans 3:1,2). If the LXX version is the inspired OT, then, as Ewert notes, "The preservation of the LXX must then be credited to the Christian Church and not to the Jews." (From the Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1983, page 107)<LI>God ruled out any Egyptian translation of the OT in Jeremiah 44:26.<LI>Only those from the priestly tribe of Levi were to copy the Scriptures (Deut 17:18, 31:25, 26; 33:10; 1 Chron 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7). The scribes began with Ezra, who returned to Palestine in 457 BC. The colony of Jews in Egypt had begun about 131 years earlier. It is resonable to expect the scribal tradition to continue in Palestine, not Alexandria. Besides, Acts 6:1, 21:37; 22:2; and Philippians 3:5d indicate some rivalry between Hebrews (Palestinian Jews) and Grecians (Hellenistic Jews).<LI>There is no difinitive manuscript evidence for the existance of any authorized pre-Christian Greek OT. (See "Facts" above)<LI>Christ and the Apostles never quoted from the Apocrypha, which the LXX contains!<LI>Christ and the Apostles would never quote (and hense endorse) an OT containing the apocryphal writings which teach contrary to sound doctrine.<LI>And OT LXX is not necessary to account for differences in wording when the NT quotes the OT.<LI>The attitude of the Jews to their sacred Scriptures, their language, and to Gentiles in general would preclude the acceptance of any translation of the OT into a "heathen" tongue from receiving official, authorized sanction. In Christian times the Jews refered to the LXX as the "work of Satan."<LI>The Targums were never official translations for the Jews, at least until the second century AD. This indicates a reluctance of the Jews to accept translations.<LI>The Greek versions of the OT by Aquila (128 AD), Theodotion (180 AD), and Symmachus (200 AD) were early attempts to produce an acceptable translation of the OT into Greek. Why would this be necessary if a pre-Christian LXX was already an "authorized" Greek OT? Ewert says, "Symmachus, and Ebionite Christian, prepared a Greek version of the OT for Jewish Christians." Why would that be necessary of the LXX was so popular with the Christians? And if the Jews did in fact reject their LXX after it became the Bible of the Christians, why would Christians respect it also? According to Miller (General Biblical Introduction, Houghton, New York, Word-Banner Press, 1960, page 113) the Apocrypha were not contained in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. Why not, if an authorized LXX contained them?<LI>Why should we accept the word of "The Letter of Aristeas" when it is known to be a fable?<LI>While Philo and Josephus may have referred to the LXX, they were both writing after the birth of Christ. "Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, clearly rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha at the time of Christ as does official Judiasm at other places and times. In fact, the extant copies of the LXX date from the fourth century AD, and DO NOT PROVE what books were in the LXX of earlier times." (Geisler and Nix, "From God to Us" Chicago, Moody Press, 1974, page 96 - emphasis mine).<LI>The writings of Jesus ben Sirach do not prove the existance of the LXX. Exactly what he said is found in the forward to the Apocryphal Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). He says, You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages. For words spoken originally in Hebrew are not as effective when they are translated into another language. That is true not only of this book, but of the law itself, the prophets, and the rest of the books, which differ no little when they are read in the original." (The New American Bible, Confraternity edition, Nashville, TN, Nelson, 1971, page 723.<LI>Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate OT between 390-405 AD and encountered a fierce storm of protest and criticism for translating it from the Hebrew rather than the venerated LXX. He also rejected the Apocrypha, eventually adding them to his translation after receiving some "friendly pressure" from the Papal Legate. Why would this be so, if the LXX was as it is claimed to be, "inspired and authoritative?" The term "Vulgate" was first used of Jerome's translation in the 13th century AD and it received the title Latin Vulgate at the Council of Trent in 1546. In Jerome's day the term "vulgata" meant corrupt, and was applied by Jerome to the existing Latin versions that were translated from Origin's revised Septuagint! (Miller, Op Cit, page 239). While it is true the KJV translators accept the "fact" of the LXX, this is what they said about it in their Preface: It is certain the tranlation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction . . . howbeit the edition of the seventy went away with the credit and therefore was not only placed in the midst by Origen . . . so it is evident the seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets, and did many things well . . . but yet as men they stumbled and fell . . . yea they may be sometimes noted to add to the original and sometimes to take from it . . . (The Translators To The Readers, Authorized Version, London, 1611, Robert Barker, Printer)[/list]Conclusion: from the statements above, the following conclusion is drawn.
1. There never was any widely accepted, official Greek translation of the Old Testament among the Jews.
2. There were several translations of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek before and after the time of Christ. It begins to appear that there probably never was a single Septuagint text, but a whole series of Greek translations, revisions, modifications, and amplication, which ought to be called, not the Septuagint but rather "Greek translations," or, as Sir Frederick Kenyon used the term, "the Greek Bible." (Grant, F. C., Translating the Bible, Edinburgh, Scotland, Thomas Nelson, 1961, page 27.)
3. There was some competition among these Greek translations for acceptence. This apocryphal letter (Aristeas), a typical piece of propaganda, was designed, as Dr. Kahle and others think, to win support for one particular Greek version of the Torah by representing it as old, official, and authorized - fully authorized, in fact, but the Greek King, the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem, the seventy (-two) themselves, and the whole Jewish community in Alexandria! As Kahle points out, no one invents propaganda for what is already generally accepted. Ewert, Op. Cit., page 21, 22)
4. What is known today as "The Septuagint" is of late origin, and is directly related to the work of Adamantius Origen (185-254 AD) in particular his Hexapla (c240 AD). This polyglot OT was both a collation and an attempt to standardize the text of the OT. The 5th column was his own work, which was later published by Eusebius of Caesarea (160-339 AD) who produced 50 Bibles for the Emperor Constantine I (228-337 AD). The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint are Codices B and Aleph, both of which have been linked to the Eusebio-Constantine Bibles of 331 AD. The LXX was produced in Alexandria, but not BC, but AD, by Origen. It contains many words and phrases which are peculiar to the Greek used in Alexandria. It contains a liberal amount of Egyptian words. (Miller, Op. Cit., page 222). Whoever produced the LXX was not a Jew! He had an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew. (ibid). His (Origen) labors on the Old Testament were thwarted by his imperfect knowledge of Hebrew . . . Fuller, Which Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, page 140). There is evidence of Christians changing the text of their Greek OT to suit their ends. In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (c 135 AD0, Justin sees a prophecy of the cross in Psalm 96:10 . . . Trypho objects on the gounds that the Hebrew does not have this. Justin then retorts that the Jews have erased this reading. Trypho finds that incredible. And, in this case, Trypho was right; the phrase . . . was not omitted by the Jews, but added by the Christians. (Ewert, Op. Cit., page 107).
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
1. There never was any widely accepted, official Greek translation of the Old Testament among the Jews.
2. There were several translations of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek before and after the time of Christ. It begins to appear that there probably never was a single Septuagint text, but a whole series of Greek translations, revisions, modifications, and amplication, which ought to be called, not the Septuagint but rather "Greek translations," or, as Sir Frederick Kenyon used the term, "the Greek Bible." (Grant, F. C., Translating the Bible, Edinburgh, Scotland, Thomas Nelson, 1961, page 27.)
3. There was some competition among these Greek translations for acceptence. This apocryphal letter (Aristeas), a typical piece of propaganda, was designed, as Dr. Kahle and others think, to win support for one particular Greek version of the Torah by representing it as old, official, and authorized - fully authorized, in fact, but the Greek King, the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem, the seventy (-two) themselves, and the whole Jewish community in Alexandria! As Kahle points out, no one invents propaganda for what is already generally accepted. Ewert, Op. Cit., page 21, 22)
4. What is known today as "The Septuagint" is of late origin, and is directly related to the work of Adamantius Origen (185-254 AD) in particular his Hexapla (c240 AD). This polyglot OT was both a collation and an attempt to standardize the text of the OT. The 5th column was his own work, which was later published by Eusebius of Caesarea (160-339 AD) who produced 50 Bibles for the Emperor Constantine I (228-337 AD). The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint are Codices B and Aleph, both of which have been linked to the Eusebio-Constantine Bibles of 331 AD. The LXX was produced in Alexandria, but not BC, but AD, by Origen. It contains many words and phrases which are peculiar to the Greek used in Alexandria. It contains a liberal amount of Egyptian words. (Miller, Op. Cit., page 222). Whoever produced the LXX was not a Jew! He had an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew. (ibid). His (Origen) labors on the Old Testament were thwarted by his imperfect knowledge of Hebrew . . . Fuller, Which Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, page 140). There is evidence of Christians changing the text of their Greek OT to suit their ends. In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (c 135 AD0, Justin sees a prophecy of the cross in Psalm 96:10 . . . Trypho objects on the gounds that the Hebrew does not have this. Justin then retorts that the Jews have erased this reading. Trypho finds that incredible. And, in this case, Trypho was right; the phrase . . . was not omitted by the Jews, but added by the Christians. (Ewert, Op. Cit., page 107).
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(1) Where did you come up with this view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From personal study of the very works which were part of the outside reading requirements. I listed some of the authors who, when I read the assignments, tended to see the LXX in an entirely different light. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) Is this somehow related to your almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I don't hold to an "almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position" your question is a non sequitur.