It's not off topic, in that we're dealing with private language issues, and private language doesn't help with debate. There is no substitute from a thorough regimen of study. For a technical religious definition of orthodox you need to go to an ecclesiastical encyclopedia and look up the word. It does nobody any good to play rhetorical games. Like the above. Or like "why would the Jewish Messiah speak such and such a language?" when dealing with whether or not He quoted from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Read Matthew 13:14-15 in the KJV and then Isaiah 6:9-10 in the same translation. Then read the Isaiah in the Septuagint and tell me which is closer.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Steven,

No, I haven't had time to compile my stuff and put it into a blog -- I would also have to organize it somewhat, and I'm pressed for time (there's a lot of material!). Though it is a good idea, and I am thinking about it again. Thanks for asking.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

"If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seem strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be “targumed” into the vernacular Aramaen – and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?"

From The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim

Taken from the thread, What language did Jesus & apostles read scriptures

Back tomorrow; bedtime here.

To say that the KJV is the 'best' is not the same thing as saying it is the 'only acceptable' translation.

No doubt that this is true. However, because 'current' English is simply not as accurate as 'KJV' English, any attempt to modernize the language will result in less accuracy. Take, for example, the 'ye and you' of the KJV would become only 'you' in 'current' English no matter how professional or scholarly.

Those who advocate a 'current' English version of the TR must admit that they believe readability is more important than accuracy.

The flip side of the argument is that we ought to keep the accuracy of the KJV and teach people how to read it. That was the example of our Puritan forefathers because, as was noted before, the English of the KJV was never anyone's spoken English. It has always been a language that had to be learned.

Actually it was the Bishop's Bible that the KJV borrowed from most.

From the KJV translation rules as posted by Andrew here: KJV Translation Rules

See this awesome thread: AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I have been challenged by TimK with his assertion that Jesus quoted from both the Hebrew OT and the Greek Septuagint. I asked him for an instance, and he provided this:

Read Matthew 13:14-15 in the KJV and then Isaiah 6:9-10 in the same translation. Then read the Isaiah in the Septuagint and tell me which is closer.

This is a complex and nuanced topic, so I hope you will bear with me, Tim, even though you have sought to save me “lots of time and huge amounts [of] writing on threads like this” if only I would adopt your view of the texts Jesus quoted. Thanks, but the facts compel me to decline your offer. And it is good exercise for the mind to study and research topics like this, and not having dealt in depth with this verse before, and desiring to further illumine this matter of the LXX, I am happy to spend the time writing on it.

What facts?

In the book by Floyd Nolen Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis.pdf, the historical background and quality of the LXX is thoroughly examined. These are among the points concluded (see page 22):

(1) The letter of Aristeas [which purports to give a history of the LXX –SMR] is mere fabrication (Kahle called it propaganda), and there is no hard historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 285-150 B.C.

(2) The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.

(3) No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 150 A.D.

(4) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen produced the first "Septuagints" – that none
existed before their works.

(5) The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of
N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New
Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product.

(6) 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".

They further point out that the nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint (see footnote 1, p. 36).”

The entire book, in pdf format, is provided so one may become familiar with the pros and cons of the LXX debate. Of course, there is an entire industry built around these text-critical matters, where we are told that on our own we cannot hope to sort out the muddle of the textual problems – in both the Old and New Testaments – that confront the reader of the Bible (God having failed to provide an intact one for His people), but for our benefit they will undertake to devote their lives as part of this Bible Industry, and make their living from it. We are only required to buy their books and the periodic “new Bibles” they produce as they pursue “the [ever elusive] authentic text”.

But to the text in question!

The Authorized Version, Matthew 13:14, 15:

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
[see also: Isa 6:9, John 12:40, Acts 28:26]

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
[see also: Isa 6:10, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27]

The Authorized Version, Isaiah 6:9, 10:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
[see also: Mt 13:14 Luke 8:10 John 12:40 Acts 28:26]

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.
[see also: Mt 13:15 Mark 4:12 Acts 28:27]

The Septuagint [click for link!] (by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), Isaiah 6:9, 10:

Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.

For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

So here we have two versions of the prophet Isaiah, the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint. Should they both be considered inspired by God? 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...” Can the LXX be considered Scripture, “given by inspiration of God”?

According to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:24, 25), it was to the Levites only that the care of the Scriptures were given, their keeping and their copying. The one exception to this was the king, who was commanded to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites...” (Deut 17:18, 19). So when this translation purported to be written by six elders out of each tribe in Israel is presented to us, are we to accept it as of God? It was not done by those appointed and authorized to copy or in any way reproduce God’s word.

So what is the status of the Isaiah 6 passage in the LXX? I maintain it is the same as that in Psalm 14:3 of the LXX (see post #5 in that thread). It was “back-engineered” from the New Testament to conform to what the writers thought was the correct OT reading, not realizing (or caring) that the Lord and the NT authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, sometimes modified the OT quotes to suit His purposes in the new covenant situation.

There are reports of the five Books of Moses existing before the time of Christ – and the quality of those five books in the Septuagint are of fair quality (see below for more on this), but we have no warrant at all to confidently assert the existence of the rest of the Old Testament in Greek before the time of Christ, or before the end of the first century, for that matter.

Concerning Christ’s quotation in Matthew of the Hebrew Isaiah passage, Calvin says, “these are not the ipsissima verba [the very words] of the prophet; but it does not matter, for all Christ wanted to show was that there was nothing novel or unusual in many people being struck senseless at God’s Word.” Calvin and other reformers knew of the LXX, as it was known to Erasmus before him, being given numerous texts from the Vaticanus manuscript (where the primary LXX text is found!) by a friend of his:

“We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome,
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

[Taken from a post on the manuscript evidence available to the Reformation editors]

That the wording of the LXX Isaiah passage is close to the AV reading proves what? Often the Lord and the apostles quoted the OT loosely, and not “the ipsissima verba”, according as the Spirit of God guided them. As with the “back-correcting” of the LXX’s Psalm 14:3 to “match” Romans 3:12-18, this is the same thing.

Consider, the Hebrew priests and Levitical scribes knew in their very bones that they were not to add or take away or change even one letter of the words God gave them through Moses, the prophets and inspired authors of Scripture. They knew the number of letters in each book, and in the entire Scripture, and counted them to make certain they added or omitted nothing while writing a new copy of their Hebrew texts. The writers of the LXX had no such compunctions. They added entire books, omitted things they thought should not be in the Scripture, were careless in their work; in short, they were not the authorized caretakers of God’s Word. What they produced was not God’s Word, but a facsimile of it, and a poor one at that.

When Jesus said that not “a jot or tittle” would be removed from the Law He could only be referring to the Hebrew, for the "Jot" is the Hebrew word "Yodh", the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the smallest letter. Tittle refers to the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. Dr. Thomas Strouse comments,

“Since the Greek OT (LXX) does not have jots and tittles He was not referring to this inferior translation which has a historical background and timetable that are very suspect.”

(Taken from his larger article on the OT Hebrew Text)

Jones begins to sum up his finds at the end of his book; he says,

At this point the reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint actually pertain to only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a.

This is especially true of Codex Vaticanus B.[1] Dr. Ira M. Price, who is certainly
no ally to the position and findings of this author (FNJ), nevertheless clearly discloses (as does Swete and Kenyon) that the text of all the "standard" LXX editions over the past 400 years – the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parsons, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, Rahlfs 1935 edition – has rested mainly on Vaticanus B along with Aleph (= "S" or a) and Alexandrinus A.[2] This little known reality is generally concealed from the student. When he consults any standard LXX reference on a reading, he finds many various sources cited throughout the work. As a result, he is left with the impression that the LXX before him is a fully representative text of all these many ancient sources. But this is grossly misleading as all those citations merely represent the few thousand variant "corrections" that have been consulted and/or added to the main text; yet the central text is almost exclusively that of B and a.

Hence a false impression has been created, and the student is left deceived as though the extant LXX prepared for general use is something other than it is. Indeed, what real significance can rightly be attached to these few thousand references when one weighs them against the vast bulk of the c.430,000 words (Apocrypha excluded) contained in the Greek Old Testament? These two uncial MSS[3] also contain Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith etc. Thus, it must be recognized that the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost 90 percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that!

Notes
[1] Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible, op. cit., pp. 69-70; Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, op. cit., fn. 1 on p. 282 and fn. 3 on p. 288; Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, op. cit., pp. 181-190; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., p. 121. Codex Alexandrinus A is also an LXX MS and is a major source for variant reading considerations; see Price, p. 70 and Horne's fn. 1 on p. 289, fn. 3 on p. 299, & fn. 2 on p. 301.
[2] Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., p. 121: "The text of the current editions of the Septuagint are mainly derived from this (i.e., Vaticanus B - FNJ) manuscript".
[3] These MSS (B and Aleph) are probably two of the 50 copies of the Bible (or at least first generation copies of these 50) which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare and place in the major churches throughout the empire. See Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, (London, Eng: F.C. and J. Rivington Pub., 1815), pp. 25-42, 94, 99; Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible, op. cit., p. 79. Vid. supra the Apocrypha, fn. 3 on p. 23.

I don’t believe the assertion that the Septuagint is quoted by our Lord and the NY authors. There is too much information which contradicts its authenticity, both historical and textual.

I’m sorry this post is not as well organized as I’d like, but there was a lot of information – too much information! – at my disposal, and I had to opt for some brevity over comprehensiveness. Dr. Jones’ book (link above) will give you far better comprehension than this brief sketch here.

There are so many things which assault our faith in God’s true word. And yet He has raised up faithful men to shine light in the encroaching darkness.

I hope my Reformed brethren will not object to my often using the work of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists; it is the Lord Jesus’ doing that these folks have some of the best scholarship in the area of textual studies and defense. We differ with them on the Doctrines of Grace, but stand with them on the matter of God’s Word.

Steve,
Do you have an opinion on other works by Floyd Nolen Jones?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Very interesting!

Also, very interesting!

I had heard of this book before. Thank you for providing a link!

BTW, why would CT advocates mind if you quote from a fundy baptist since they are so fond of quoting from Metzger?

CT,

I downloaded them in pdf from the same site, but haven't had time to look at them yet. I will shortly, and comment.

Thanks Jerusalem Blade! You know your stuff. This is far better than the tripe I usually hear. I especially liked the line about not needing to be an expert in Hebrew and Greek to know a good translation! Super enjoyable. I'll give thanks tomorrow. See my prayer about dishwasher installation for why.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I would add a couple of points for clarification to provide a stronger answer to your rhetorical question.

1. In Erasmus travels, in particular the years he lived with Aldus Manutius, and then following was secretary to the Pope, he appears to have actually come into contact and seen the Vaticanus itself. Manutius had gathered together several greek Christians from Constinople, that had escaped the Muslim overthrow, and brought manuscripts of the Scripture with them. They lived together for a number of years pledging to speak and write only in Greek while they did so for the purposes of becoming intimately and organically connected with the language of Scripture. It is here in this environment that Erasmus refined his Greek skills and began his work. Aldus Manutius is the founder of the Aldine Press and also, interestingly enough, inventor of the italic type face which is utilized by the Authorized Version to indicate translational emmendation so as not to impugn the ipsissima verba of the underlying original tongue!

I'm providing a quote below from one of my recent lectures concerning this.

I finished those lecture series this past Lord's Day with a lot of in depth research that debuncts the majority of the historical revisionism of the critical camp. Moreover, I've arrived at the conclusion that Erasmus has to be examined from an entirely different vantage point to properly understand him and his work. In other words, the apologetic that has been mounted to defend the Recieved Text against the modern critical smears, while many times are factually correct counterpoints, are nevertheless premised upon a false revision of the actual history by the modern critical schools.

For example, one of the critical school smears is how hastily Erasmus worked with Froben, but what they don't tell you is that his license from Maximillius extended him exclusive printing rights for four years. A license, though, is a license of the press - not the scholar. Yet, they insinuate that the haste was required to beat the Complutesian to press - who were, after all, prohibited from printing by the exclusive license. Nor do they tell you that this license and original arrangement for printing was with Erasmus' good friend Aldus Manutius who, however, died in February 1515. This necessitated an arrangement with a new printer, Froben, who wanted to print his Latin translation and annotations separate from the Greek text, but Erasmus wouldn't hear of it because he wanted his translation to be presented as standing upon authority of the original greek. The haste doesn't appear to be attempting to beat the Complutesian to press, as they allege, rather it seems to be over concerns of Froben's partner of printing the Greek text on its own which he did a few months later. Failure to grasp the importance of Erasmus' Latin Translation in relation to the original greek is a major misunderstanding of modern Christians and the basis in which they are so easily deceived by the modern critical schools historical revisionism.

Hence, Erasmus and Manutius were working on this project together, with Erasmus preparing his Latin translations and Annotations for publication while living in England from 1509 to 1515 at the request of King Henry VIII, and Manutius preparing the Greek in Italy. They also don't tell you that the manuscripts he worked from in England were seized by customs officials when he went to Basel. Hence, the necessity of haste where he says: "At last I have escaped from the workhouse in Basel, where I have got through six years work in eight months,” were necessitated because of Manutius death with the preparation of the Greek for printing now falling upon his shoulders amidst the disagreement of how they should be printed - together or separately. This answers so many questions and solves them, as well, like the last six verses of Revelation and more very important ones.

Hence, to properly present the truth, integrity must be built for Erasmus work, and it can be. It most certainly can be!

I've walked away from this study with a lot more respect for Erasmus. It's easy to look at history from one side, especially based upon the theological conflict derived from Luther's Bondage of the Will, and end up with a skewed impression that Erasmus' erred soteriological understanding brands him as a virtual Arminian heretic. However, who knows that Luther owes his very life to Erasmus? When the Elector of Saxony received word that the Pope wanted to see Luther in Rome, and everyone knew what that meant, he sent for Erasmus to advise him. His response was: "Luther has committed two sins: he has touched the pope's crown and the monks bellies." He then advised the Elector to protect Luther.

The truth is much deeper and much clearer than the historical revisionism fed to us in "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16) by the modern critical schools.

Here is the quote:

If you remember, Erasmus collated many manuscripts dividing them into two classes, those that coincided with the Byzantine texts and those that coincided with the Vaticanus. Since the Latin Vulgate came into existence in 382 AD, he characterized Greek manuscripts of this era as being corrupted by Arians and Origenists. As he said defending his rejection of their readings in 1527: “We too came across a manuscript of this nature, and it is said that such a manuscript is still preserved in the papal library written in majuscule characters.” Dr. DeJonge says of this statement: “The manuscript to which Eramus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus…designated B, Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as…inferior.” In his textual work from 1522 to 1535 Paul Bombasius and Sepulveda would provide Erasmus several hundred readings from the Vaticanus.

Interior quote from H.J. De Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum

It should be no surprise, then, that the Pope's library was open to the greatest scholar of the day while serving as the Pope's secretary! Further, it should be easier to understand that Erasmus's requests for transcriptions of certain passages are based upon his prior examination of the manuscript itself.

2. Now to answer your rhetorical question: "That the wording of the LXX Isaiah passage is close to the AV reading proves what?" Based upon my studies, I've arrived at this conclusion.

The LXX is held up as an "inspired translation" of the ancient Hebrew text, then it is asserted that Christ and the Apostles approved of this recension quoting it in the New Testament, whereby the LXX is then postulated to represent the true text and the Hebrew Masoretic text is discredited. Hence, the modern support of it is part of the Romanist Tridentine counterattack against Sola Scriptura to bolster the Latin Vulgate and was developed by Trent's apologists in the debate with the Protestants over the integrity of the vowel points of the Masoretic Hebrew text.

This, then, provides a fraudulent foundation for Hort's Lucian recension hypothesis, asserting the superiority of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which so devastatingly demolished the Received Text at the beginning of the 20th century. The authority of which rests upon accepting the BC LXX as representing true quotes in the New Testament. To bring this forth it was then necessary to destroy Christian's faith in the integrity of the Received Text which required the deception of faithful Protestants like B.B. Warfield and many other of our shepherds. That is because the universal position of Protestant Christians was that the Received Text was the preserved word of God in every detail, and once our shepherds were deceived they led the flock of Christ astray. (Jeremiah 50:6) As the Aland's plainly say:

"We can appreciate the better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself." The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, p 16

To carry this out Erasmus work and the integrity of those texts are chided as being late and worthless copies in comparison to their self-claimed "oldest and best manuscripts." Yet, they have no evidence that any BC "Septuagint" ever existed, and further because they hold that the term defining the Greek Old Testament is "the translation of the Seventy" or LXX, and that only comes from the Letter of Aristreas which claims that only the Torah was translated by them, then the question over Isaiah is moot. It can't be LXX and must be a post-Apostolic work because the only evidence of its existence is Origen's Hexapla from which the Vaticanus and Jerome's Latin Translation are derived.

Hence, it seems to me that this is nothing more than a continuation of the Tridentine counterattack against Sola Scriptura. The reason is very simple, they manufacture a cunningly devised fable to assign the authority of the Apostolic witness to the Latin Vulgate via the Greek. This is based upon an hypothetical BC translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek which then is used to establish a fraudulent hypothesis in favor of the Alexandrian text by saying Christ and Apostles quoted it, supporting a hypothetical recension of the Greek into the Byzantine text type from which to dismiss 95% of the manuscript evidence.

Let us never forget that Origen was condemned as a heretic with 15 anathema's against him at the Second Council of Constinople in 553 AD.

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema."

This is why this old codex Vaticanus and its text type was abandoned and disappears into obscurity surviving in the Pope's library and the Sinaiticus awaiting it's proper fate as kindling for the monks fires at St. Catherines.

The question, then, must be asked. If the written record existing in Origen's Hexapla of about 250 AD is received as a true translation of a BC Hebrew text upon no manuscript evidence whatsoever - then why can't the Byzantine text which is repeatedly vindicated as representing a text as far back as the second Century be the true text of the New Testament?

The problem is that both Rome and Protestants can't be right. Either Rome is right or Protestants are - either they are condemned or we are. Either the Second Council of Constinople's anathema against Origen condemns the modern critical schools or Trent's anathema's condemn us. Somebody has sown tares into the Church of God and they've done it using the Bible itself! Matthew 13:28 Whoever reads this, study to shew yourself approved of God and work out your own salvation in fear and trembling!

In closing, I am reminded of the words of Earnest Colwell. And who is Earnest Colwell you may ask? He was Dean of Chicago University School of Divinity under whom a young Westminster graduate and protege of J. Gresham Machen would come to study, Edward F. Hills - author of King James Version Defended.

"The genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts…Hort utilized this principle solely to*depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent…Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were*deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis. Earnest Colwell, "Hort Redivivus”

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

I just love the methodology of the true Conspiracy Theorist.

It's true that the vast majority of people who have looked into the subject believe that two hijacked planes brought down the two towers on 9/11, but we know different because jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. If you don't believe me, check out this article written by so and so, a licensed architect! Folks, we're dealing with a HUGE conspiracy!!!

And while it's true that virtually all scholars who specialise in the subject, from all denominations, and for all of Christian history believe that there was a Greek translation of at least the Law and some of the Prophets in wide circulation at the time of Christ, and that NT authors quoted from them, it's NOT TRUE!!! And to prove it read this book!!!

I don't have to bow down to people who know the relevant languages and subject matter!!! I can get there using deduction!

You see, in both cases, the Conspiracy theorist works backwards. They first come to a theory, then work backwards to prove their theory by picking and choosing items that support their theory.

But whether one likes it or not, the only true test of a theory is to try to disprove it.

Tim,

I would modify your axiom to read thus: “The true test of a theory is will it stand under all attempts to disprove it, and give demonstration of its truth.” And add another: “A theory in full accord with God’s Word is true.”

CT,

I looked at Jones’ Which Version is the Bible?, and Ripped from the Bible, and they seem sound. In the former, looking at Romans 8:1, he avers that Calvinists do not like the AV reading as it seems to deny salvation by grace, but this is not so – though perhaps he has run across some of this ilk (IFBs are strong opponents of Calvinism). Apart from that his textual studies I believe are alright. He is an astute scholar. I have a hard copy of his large book on Bible chronology, but haven’t gone through that yet (I collect books on Bible chronology).

Why do you ask? Have you found anything amiss in him re textual or other matters (apart from the IFB distinctives)?

Thomas,

I didn’t have time to read your post, but will later this evening.


For those of you interested in the topic of the Septuagint I list the table of contents of Jones’ book. Despite TimV’s sarcasm (I do not consider that an adequate response), the scholarship in the book is excellent. I realize that when one says the emperor has no clothes, they will be met with scorn from those who are blinded by their wishful thinking he does!

Two caveats: Jones shows that Terence Brown of the TBS did believe in a pre-Christ LXX (with reservations); see p. 51, footnote 2 of the pdf version. And Edward Hills also believed that (I will find a PB post which shows his view on this sometime soon).




THE SEPTUAGINT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE HISTORY OF THE LXX............................................... .... 1
THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX)............................................. ............. 1
PROBLEMS AT THE ONSET............................................. .......... 2
THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT .......................................... 3
THE TESTIMONY OF THE "STAR WITNESS" – FALLACIOUS!........... 6
THE SCRIPTURES CONFRONT THE LXX'S "HISTORY..................... 7
THE QUALITY OF THE TRANSLATION....................................... .. 8
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS .................................................. ... 9
DISCORDANT AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LXX................. 11
DISCORDANT LENGTHS OF KINGS REIGNS IN THE LXX............... 13
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY BASED ON HEBREW (TRUE) O.T. TEXT........ 14
CHAPTER SUMMATION......................................... ................... 15

II. THE STATUS OF THE LXX............................................... ..... 17
THE HEXAPLA AND MESSIANIC PROPHECY................................. 17
OTHER REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT .................................. 19
THE "BIBLE" OF THE EARLY CHURCH?....................................... 20
AN EXTANT PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? ............................... 21
WAS THERE ACTUALLY A PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA SEPTUAGINT?...... 22
IS THE APOCRYPHA THE CLUE TO THE TRUTH REGARDING THE LXX? ... 23
THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE HEBREW TEXT................................ 24

III. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LXX........................................27
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT?...... 27
A. DIRECT HEBREW - LXX COMPARISONS ........................... 27
B. IRREFUTABLE INTERNAL EVIDENCE ............................... 34
THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT ANALYZED ... 35
WHY THEN DO CONSERVATIVES UPHOLD THE LXX? ..................... 37
A. TO DEFEND "VIRGIN" IN ISAIAH 7:14....................................37
B. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE O.T. WAS TRANSLATED....... 38
LXX "PROOF TEXTS" FOUND WANTING........................................ 39
THE FALLACIOUS NATURE OF THE LXX DEMONSTRATED ............... 41
THREE "PROBLEM" TEXTS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS................... 44

IV. THE LXX VERSUS GOD'S PROMISE.........................................47
THE BIBLE - A "SACRED" BOOK.............................................. ..... 47
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES? .. 48
OVERVIEW.......................................... ...................................... 49
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. .......... 50
CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................... ................... 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... ....................................58
INDEX............................................. ........................................62

It's less sarcasm than awe.

But the Emperor in this case is 99% of scholars who have studied the matter over the last 2000 years. And I truly don't believe it's wishful thinking on my part.

You, by your own admission, prefer Fundie Baptist scholars.

But there is a reason that people who write things like "The Trail of Blood" aren't taken seriously by informed people, especially from traditions that have a tradition of serious scholarship. And the reason isn't fear, or wishful thinking, or blindness but rather an amusement that often is tinged with contempt, or sorrow, or frustration or simply disinterest.

I am by no means accusing you, or mocking you. I am just trying to point out that when you hold to things that go against the overwhelming view of the church, while you may be right the actual likelihood of you being right is very slim. So you will have to learn the original languages, and familiarize yourself with the great body of work on the subject rather than cherry picking your sources before you will be given a serious hearing by serious people. On that matter, as I want to point out that my critique of your methodology is no reflection on you as a brother who's done ten times as much for the Kingdom as I have.

Hello Tim,

At the end of the 17th century the Letter of Aristreas was proven to be fraudulent by Humphry Hody - who wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he was a Reformed Professor of Greek at Oxford University. This was discussed in this thread: LXX Torah only, or Genesis-Malachi?

The Reformation begins upon the publication by Erasmus of his New Testament in 1516 and Valla's work in 1517. Hence, the Received Text breaks upon the world coupled to the proof that the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine are fraudulent documents. It is upon this ground that Luther's very first 95 Thesis brings home the point that our Lord's teaching at the beginning of His ministry is "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is overturning the sacrament of penance which is derived from the Apocrapha, which comes from the Greek Old Testament and thereby influenced Jerome in the translation of the Latin which reads: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (See Matthew 4:17, in the Authorized Version and the Latin Vulgate)

Learning that the LXX is fraudulent is common knowledge and is just the continuation of the Reformation in uncovering the width, height, depth and breadth of the Ole Deluders work at the height of Arianism in the middle of the 3rd century. Everyone has known this and it was a long settled issue and has been for over three centuries. Elder Rafalsky and I have only continued a discussion that is the historic Reformed and orthodox position.

We must, however, rest our opinions upon the truth of Scripture and not the opinions of men in a majority or minority. That is what is being argued for in this thread. Anyone can jump off a building denying the validity of gravity, but the truth of God's Law will prevail - and it doesn't matter which position one takes, you can believe in gravity or disbelieve in it, jump off a building and God's Law will prevail.

We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament that includes the Apocrapha, indeed is the source of it. Where it came from is what is being discussed here. Either way, if you believe it is genuine then certainly you are entitled to your opinion - it's just that as Protestants we have long rejected the Apocrapha and don't recognize its source as being an authentic and legitimate transcription of the Holy Scriptures.

The follower so of Wescott and Hort have now for a century broken upon the Protestant world and made merchandise of the Church disturbing the peace and purity of the Church claiming that all along Rome has always been right.

For you to break in upon a thread accusing the historic Reformed and orthodox position on the true identity of the New Testament as being "fanatical" and that we mustn't forget that the Roman Catholics are "orthodox" too and then respond with your flippant and disrespectful post makes it very difficult to take you seriously.

The question is can you defend your arguments or not? Are juvenile responses like this the best we can expect?

Cordially,

Thomas

So what? Nobody has ever relied solely upon him. What have you done with Philo and Aritobulus?

Everyone meaning a hand full of Fundies, right?

Well, some of it we do, like the part Jude quotes, and some of it we don't. But we're talking about the Law and Prophets, aren't we.


The view that the Septuagint is a hoax is not the historic Reformed and orthodox position.

You seem to make the mistake of conflating 'scholars' with the church.

You keep sarcastically mentioning fundy baptists but have you examined the beliefs of all of these 'scholars' upon whom you trust?

Have I examined the beliefs of the tens of thousands of scholars who don't think the quotes in the NT seemingly taken from the Septuagint were "back translated" in a titanic hoax?

No, I haven't. And I mentioned the Fundies since Elder A. brought up the fact that he relies heavily on them.

I can think the Masoretic text a preferable text for translating the OT, and I can think that the TR a superior text to translate the NT from without buying into conspiracy theories.

You are correct. However, your sarcasm in regards to the fundamental baptist beliefs of this scholar do not help you to persuade others unless you can show that none of the scholars whom you trust have similar beliefs.

You seem to be setting some kind of 'bar' for acceptable scholarship in regards to textual criticism. Are scholarly opinions acceptable as long as they are not fundamental, baptist or both? Would you accept the scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, for example? What about a continuationist?

A little more information.

From Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro’s, Did Jesus & the Apostles Quote the Septuagint (LXX)?, pages 4, 7:

The Aramaic Talmuds which contained acceptable Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text were considered authoritative commentaries, but not the word of God. The Palestinian Jewish community accepted only the Hebrew Scriptures. This was the community of Jesus and the Apostles.

The prophets and the Hagiographa (Holy Writings), the other two divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, were the object of various official and unofficial translation attempts. By the days of Philo (100 B.C.) and Josephus (100 A.D.), there was an almost complete Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. While this Greek Old Testament did circulate in the Hellenistic world, it did not enjoy the full confidence of its readers except in the synagogues of Egypt....

Other regions of the Hellenistic world combined the Alexandrian Pentateuch with a regional Greek text of the Prophets and Holy Writings. There were regional Greek Bibles which enjoyed varying confidence by their readers.

In Alexandria, the confidence was almost unshakable. In Israel, the Hebrew Scriptures continued to dominate in the Synagogue. There were forms of the Greek Old Testament available to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament Scripture. Usually the Alexandrian translation of the Law of Moses combined with a regionally done copy of the Holy Writings and the Prophets, is called the Septuagint in a non-technical sense. BUT, there is no reliable evidence that the Septuagint as it is known and published today, did* exist in the pre-Christ world.

In this paper, I will attempt to clarify my use of the term in its setting. We are asking the question, “Did Jesus and the writers of the New Testament use a complete, universally accepted Greek Old Testament, produced in Alexandria, Egypt, as the authoritative Word of God.”

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

....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.

The Value of the Septuagint to Us

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 on no longer servant to the scholars.

* The manuscript actually reads “did not exist” but I have determined this is a typo; I have sent an email to a friend of DiVietro asking him to contact him for confirmation.

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.

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

Tim,

You say,

That’s too sweeping a statement to pass! Over the last two thousand years?

If there is no evidence that a pre-Christ LXX – a complete and standard version – existed, how else say it? I think it clear from all of the above that I am not denying at least a copy of the Pentateuch, and some other portions of the prophets did exist (we have reports of this), but the actual documents, or copies thereof, are no longer extant, and the Septuagint which does exist today is certainly not the same as whatever may have existed in the past. The fact is, we do not know what existed – we do not have any of the words written, save in the “Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. [with some uncertainty –SMR].” Otherwise there are no extant pre-Christ manuscripts.

What is it you are saying that 99% of the scholars are saying? That there are? And whatever is being asserted concerning Jesus and the NT authors quoting the “Septuagint” is certainly NOT agreed on by “99% of the scholars”. The only “Septuagint” we have now is from Codices B, Aleph, and A, and these manuscripts are notoriously corrupt.

These days perhaps 70% of the scholars do not agree with my statement concerning their corruption. But then again perhaps 80% (more?) of the scholars do not agree with the Reformed distinctives – does this make them right? What if it is 90% Now are they right?

When you disparage “The Trail of Blood” (of which I had not heard before), it makes me wonder (along with your evading the simple question about Catholics & their orthodoxy – apart from “technical ecclesiastical definitions”). Any one who has studied the history of the Waldenses (Vadois) and Albigenses in the mountains of Italy and France, and the trail of blood their Catholic hunters drenched the ground of Europe with as they slaughtered them up through the centuries, would not lightly disparage these Baptists. Now I do not hold that the Waldenses were all Baptists, but the Baptists do claim them, and the trail of blood is the blood of the martyrs, genuine martyrs, and their pursuers the genuine children of the devil.

These “Fundies” you seem to disdain (and, yes, your patronizing “amusement...often tinged with contempt” – is quite evident) are our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we shall spend eternity in the Kingdom. Although you will not own it, they are the ones carrying the torch of loyalty to God’s preserved Word ever since our own mighty and beloved (for such he is) Warfield sought to douse it in the waters of rationalist doubt.

That the LXX of today is found in the corrupt B and Aleph is indeed a true guilt by association, for that text-form is notorious.

Before Warfield, in the Reformed and Presbyterian camp, the LXX of the Vatican was not acknowledged as true Scripture. “Hoax” is not the right word. And I never said that. The hoax is when some seek to assert that it is inspired Scripture. As though Moses wrote in Genesis 2:2 that on the sixth day God ended His work.

You are saying that Jude quoted the apocryphal “Book of Enoch”?

Is there a satanic conspiracy against the human race, and especially against those who are the born-again children of God? Was there a satanic conspiracy against the Savior when He was in the world (that is, a concerted effort to thwart His work and destroy Him)? And when He was taken out of it, was there a satanic conspiracy to attack His written word? This is acknowledged by multitudes of Christians – of all Protestant denominations – but not among the liberal scholars who dislike the supernatural. And if there is indeed a satanic conspiracy, do not the demons seek to use humans as agents of their agendas?

Ridicule is only an effective weapon if it is not used against the truth. There are indeed conspiracies of deception, and the conspirators often deceived themselves. This is life on the planet earth.

Good night (for such it is here).

No, most Fundamentalist scholars do not share the opinions of the two brothers. It's a segment, like the Missionary Baptists that say there was a continuation of Apostolic Baptists that held pure to the faith all during the ages, and unlike those of us who's traditions came out of Rome, were never tainted by Rome, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans etc.. were tainted. It's the same type of logic and scholarship every time, and that includes reams of material when they reply to posts that don't have anything to do with the questions you ask them.

They can be Fundamental as long as historic, Western standards of scholarship apply.
I do it all the time, as does everyone here. When I have a question about my honeybees I don't look to religion, I look to competence. Same with my mechanic. Everyone reading right now has had the same experiences. We'd all prefer 5 pointers doing difficult electrical work, but there are things more important.

Yes, well, nobody said it did. What was said is that Christ and the NT authors quoted passages from the Septuagint, i.e. Greek translations of various parts of the Law and Prophets. Then you went off on a titanic conspiracy theory which posited back translations to account for verses that are more similar to the Greek translation/s than the Hebrew.

Who said otherwise? The question is whether the NT authors quoted exclusively from the Hebrew, and that's not the case.


Which is really typical of your methodology. You admit you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and then post a really, really long opinion.

No evasion here. I'm trying to get you to not use personal language. If Catholics and Lutherans and Russian Orthodox hold to the Ecumenical Councils we call them lower case "o" orthodox. What's there to evade?

Yes, as are many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT. So?

Sorry. I post on a Fundie site, and respect the people, but there's just no comparison when it comes to responsible scholarship between Fundies and those of the Reformed tradition. I'm perhaps chauvinistic, but they don't hold a candle to us.

Yes, he did. And no, it doesn't mean that the whole of that Book was inspired.

Tim,

I had not heard of “Trail of Blood” before, but after your mention I familiarized myself with it. It is standard fare regarding Baptist history, or at least Waldensian history, concerning which I have studied quite a bit. That’s a very important aspect of church history, as it pertains to forerunners of the Reformation. It is not always wise to make ungrounded assumptions, and then run with them.

The point of my posting as I do is, in part, to show one does not need fluency in the original languages to be informed about the history and quality of the Biblical texts, and to make sound choices thereby. Seeing as “experts” and “scholars” disagree, shows that fluency is not a determining factor in deciding on this issue of the texts. To be sure, fluency is a great gift which may be used to edify the church – but it is also a weapon of the devil in his seeking to destroy it.

My “really, really long opinions” – were they but that, would be worthless; if they are based on familiarity with the topics, and are supported by facts – or at least, in some instances, feasible hypotheses (for when we deal with the history of the Biblical texts there are large gaps where we have no substantial data) – they may be of worth. If I desire to use the materials of others – materials which are often overlooked as they are not in the mainstream of contemporary thinking – to bring forth information which is little known and highly pertinent to the topic, I think I do well.

The truth of the matter is, we are in an age of decline concerning the knowledge of the Biblical texts – not fluency in them, but of their history and quality – and this for at least the last hundred years. In the Reformation era the general state of understanding was quite different, and it is this that I seek to know and to share with others.

You have yet to prove the NT authors used other than the Hebrew to quote from, whereas I have shown – in the Psalm 14:3 in LXX thread – that scholars (Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, Moo, for starts) – also hold to what you call the “conspiracy theory” of the NT-era LXX authors back-correcting their OT quotes from the NT.

I realize I subject myself to the ridicule of the “formally” educated (those that are of a certain bent regarding knowledge so obtained) by exposing my lack thereof. But as the Biblical writers themselves were often “unlearned and ignorant” men, who learned in the Lord’s school, I am not ashamed. And those who would seek to shame me, well, may the Savior deal with it, seeing as I am about His business – upholding the integrity of His word in this day when its integrity is impugned in so many quarters, even among the Reformed.

I asked because he has works have not been on your list of recommended works on the subject and it seemed that he was a competent scholar PhD and the like (I also have his work on biblical chronology.) I was wondering if there was something that you knew that made you not recommend his works on this subject. Now I know that this is not the case.

CT

Concerning The Book of Enoch,

First of all, we do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

To assert dogmatically that Jude quoted from the book, and not an ancient saying, is unsound.

Pastor Bruce brought up in an another thread that Jude does quote Deuteronomy 33:2 in his 14th verse.

-------

Concerning having to know the original tongues, this from another post:

I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are fluent in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have their knowledge. (There are exceptions here on PB, where are some well-educated clergy.)

And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the corrupted Critical Text. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.

If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.

And what need have we of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? Cloud is right in this. Professors and “fathers” – fine as they may be at times – are not to supplant the authority of the Scriptures, and the Spirit of Christ who teaches us through them (1 John 2:20-27). Consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:

There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of The Pilgrim's Progress. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.

One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:

John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’

Tim, when it comes to “responsible scholarship” in these days we live in now, the IFBs – some of them – do indeed “hold a candle to us” in the area of textual studies. I refer to the scholarly and generally irenic among them. Centuries ago this was not so, but now it is. Of course this is one of the bones of contention between the TR and CT adherents; we are simply on different sides of the fence in this matter. To utterly ignore the positions of the post-Reformation theologians on the textual issues, and make it seem like this is but aberrant IFB ideology, is what we call “spin” – spinning a spell of disinformation. And I like to dispel such.

chauvinist: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender.

You indicated that “many of the third of a billion or so who prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew as their OT” shall spend eternity with us in the Kingdom. I gather you are speaking of the Greek Orthodox (for the Russians hold to the Hebrew OT), and some other Orthodox communions. I live in the country where it is said the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” exists. I married into a Greek Orthodox family (my wife is Presbyterian now, having converted). On what basis do you assert that these folks, who consider Mary equal to – if not greater than – her Son, who insist that God gave the Greek Orthodox Church (to the exclusion of the Protestant “heretics”) to dispense His grace to those who submit to her dictates, status in the Kingdom of God? These who say that to be saved one must confess to a priest, take the communion of the Mass, partake of the other sacraments of the GOC, and follow the ways of this religion, these are “sound teachers” able to lead sinners to peace with God? To assert that salvation may be found in a sacramental system as opposed the simplicity of faith in the Gospel of Christ is serious error, to my thinking. To say that a “church” which does not stand before God justified by faith, which does not account the legal aspects of the atonement of Christ of great significance, preferring instead the mystical doctrines they associate with the Incarnation, to say that these folks have standing in the Kingdom – or “many” of them do – is to support false teaching. Which is not to say that some – some few – know the Lord (as with Catholics also). But “many”, as though the sacramental system were efficacious unto salvation? Paul pronounced a divine curse on such deviant gospels!

Steve

Ah, I'd forgotten that Enoch was back translated. How convenient. Of course Christ used the word speak instead of wrote as well, so we could have left out that last sentence.


Yes, but we aren't talking about ministering, are we. We are talking about a specialist field.

and there follow eight inches of writing about Bunyan, who was a masterful teacher. But we're talking about specialist fields, not the qualifications for ministers.

That's what you get from spending so much time reading ignorant Fundies rather than good, solid Reformed writers (like Rushdoony, Thomas, if you're following, and since you brought up his name. I personally started the ball rolling for his in house publishing, and was paid for that and for writing articles for Chalcedon when there were only 9 families up there. He was really big on the Ecumenical Councils, as you'd know if you had read much of his work). You start getting strange ideas about Salvation. The same Fundies that bloviate about Mary being co-redeemer with Christ usually believe the same thing, except that they substitute themselves as co-redeemer. So what? I wish it were different, and that all Fundies, Orthodox and Catholics would convert to conservative Presbyterianism. But "on what basis do I assert (many) of these folks......" will go to heaven? It's the word orthodox, lower case "o", coupled with a real belief that Christ is God and died for their sins.

Could you elaborate on 'western standards of scholarship'?

I was not asking if you accept the scholarship of men who deny the innerancy of Scripture in regards to bees, or cars, or electricity. We are talking about textual criticism.

Would you accept the textual scholarship of a man who denies the inerrancy of Scripture?

Of course I would. If Philo was a Jew, or any of a number of other non-Christians living back then wrote about the translations, or modern archaeologists, textual experts, etc.. and the subject was whether or not portions of Greek translations of the Scriptures were existent and quoted by NT authors why on earth not as long as they were expert? It's not like I would want to know how they interpreted them.

There is some value do deductive reason, based on Scriptural principles. Of course there is. But if that reasoning goes against majority church teaching, then one needs to look at the reason carefully.

For example if Elder A. says, as he did earlier on this thread
Then I would say
1. The Scripture Elder A. used doesn't speak to the issue, as so many other things he's written on this thread.
Not a word about copying or translating.

2. This is one of the most classic cases of Straw Man I've seen in a long time. One of several historical sources that speak of the Hebrew being translated into Greek claimed people from every tribe were involved, therefore we can't accept it as God's word. For one thing most of the historical sources don't make the claim that people from every tribe participated, and for another the prohibition Elder A. claims about who was allowed to translate is just something he made up.

3. What that would mean practically for us today is that we'd be under the same sort of restrictions today when it comes to translating, right?

So, I reject that particular allegation by Elder A. And that should serve as an example of what ISN'T an example of Western scholarship norms.

Regards
Tim

And again, that is not to say he isn't a much better Christian than I am or that he hasn't done ten times the work for the Kindom, or that he doesn't have anything of value to say.

Did Philo deny the inerrancy of Scripture?

Regardless, if you do not deny the textual scholarship of men based on their view of Biblical innerancy, why would you deny the textual scholarship of men based on their views of baptism and fundamentalism?

Agreed. And no one here is claiming that you should blindly believe Mr. Rafalsky. But you have not proved that Mr. Rafalsky's 'reasoning goes against majority church teaching.' You have made claims (without citing any sources) that Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against '99% of scholars'. But you have not shown how Mr. Rafalsky's reasoning goes against majority church teaching. Scholars are not the church. The Jesus Seminar is made up of scholars. Am I to blindly believe what the majority of them teach?

This does not define 'western scholarship norms' or 'western standards of scholarship'. I googled it and it seems to be a popular phrase but cannot find a definition. BTW, who is Elder A? Do you mean Elder Rafalsky or some rhetorical figure?

Calvin on Jude 14, 15:

“And Enoch also. I rather think that this prophecy was unwritten, than that it was taken from an apocryphal book; for it may have been delivered down by memory to posterity by the ancients.
Were any one to ask, that since similar sentences occur in many parts of Scripture, why did he not quote a testimony written by one of the prophets? the answer is obvious, that he wished to repeat from the oldest antiquity what the Spirit had pronounced respecting them: and this is what the words intimate; for he says expressly that he was the seventh from Adam, in order to commend the antiquity of the prophecy, because it existed in the world before the flood.

But I have said that this prophecy was known to the Jews by being reported; but if any one thinks otherwise, I will not contend with him, nor, indeed, respecting the epistle itself, whether it be that of Jude or of some other. In things doubtful, I only follow what seems probable.”

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for intelligent, even if disagreeing, discussion!

A “specialist field”, the history of the texts? It ought to be, and increasingly is, a field being made open and clear to non-specialists. This is one good contribution to the field:

Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland.

The AV Translators on the Septuagint:

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Thanks much, I hadn't seen that before

So if one were to say that the Septuagint wasn't as good a source as the Hebrew but NT authors sometimes quoted from it, then one would be in good company.

If I am reading this correctly, doesn't this admit that the 'Septuagint' of Origen cannot be proved to be the same 'Septuagint' that existed at the time of Christ? And if so, one cannot prove or disprove the use of the 'Septuagint' by Christ. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There's no need to admit anything. It says there were constant improvements/revisions of the Septuagint from the time it was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphia two and a half centuries before the Christ. In the third sentence of the work posted by the Mod the term "70" is used, and that's what Septuagint means.

What the translators of the AV said was that the Septuagint was first commissioned two and a half centuries before the Christ, and constant improvements and revisions were made. In other words, even if those scholars had even heard of Steve's theory of "back translations" they didn't put any stock in it.

To say that there was no such thing as the King James Version because there have been revisions/improvements to it over the centuries would be the equivalent of what you are wondering/implying.

Steve, I'd love to see a picture of your wife! My brother who is a senior law enforcement official (was in charge of Michael Jackson's security during his court case in Santa Barbara county!) was fortunate enough to marry a Greek girl, who is the best sister in law a man could hope to have.

Best
Tim

The conspiracy theory idea has been mentioned so many times now that I think everyone understands the point of the criticism. Something more substantial needs to be offered to rebut the thesis.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I'm sorry, and will try and modify the sarcasm.
Thanks
Tim
edit: I deleted a gratuitous sarcastic remark in my above post.

That is much appreciated. Is there any possibility of folk interacting with John Owen's approach to the subject as found in his commentary on Hebrews, vol. 1:106-117, and the view expressed by the editor on pp. 117-118?

But because the LXX was revisised or 'improved' up to the time of Origen, and since there are no copies of the original, we still have no idea what it looked like at the time of Christ, right?

I am not sure what you mean here.

Tim,

You were the one dogmatically asserting that the Apostle's quoted from what is called the "Septuagint," the only record of which we have is Origen's Hexapla and then Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. I first mentioned and then Elder Rafalsky provided ample evidence that many of these are in fact emendations in Origen's Hexapla performed around 250 AD. It is common knowledge that the Alexandrian Platonists operated fast and loose with Scripture engaging in some of the worst conjectural emendation to date.

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."

Yet, a conspiracy to establish the Papacy does seem to historically exist as the Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals testify. Our Protestant Father's received this knowledge and utilized it to advance the Reformation and defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against the Church Magisterium.

The Letter of Aristreas at this point was not known to be fraudulent. Further it was John Owen that argued for "back translations" in his disputes with Cappel and the school of Samuer on the denial of the inspiration of the Hebrew vowell points. This, of course, was taken up by Richard Simon following Romanist Isaac La Peyrere and the idea that the Old Testament was mostly mythology. Talk about "conspiracy theories," La Peyrere believed that there were pre-Adamic men. He was imprisoned for his beliefs and later recanted them before the Pope asserting that it was his Protestant upbringing that had polluted his thinking. Yet, he had a tremendous impact upon Biblical criticism as Woodbridge notes:

"La Peyreres influence was selective but immense. The principle founders of modern biblical criticism, Baruch Spinoza and Richard Simon, were both intellectual debtors to his studies." J Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, p 89

This is the foundation of the departure from the historic sacred criticism of the Reformation to the naturalistic scientific criticism that originates with Simon and follows him, in one unified chorus of denying the reliability of Scripture.

The record before us is that out of thousands of New Testament manuscripts no two agree exactly, yet it is asserted as a dogmatic truth that a record of the Greek Old Testament of 250 AD is a perfect record of a pre-Christian translation from which the Apostle's quoted.

You offer as proof nothing more than a post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament quotes the Apostolic New Testament. That doesn't prove anything, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the original autograph of the Greek Old Testament, or at least a pre-Christian copy, matches the post-Apostolic Greek Old Testament. Only then can you prove the Apostle's quoted it - other than that it is not proof, it's just your dogmatic assertion based upon your presuppositional interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation we believe is incorrect because it is presuppositionally incorrect.

No it's not. We know in fact that this translation existed, we have detailed knowledge of it that is provable fact. There is no evidence of a Septuagint and that which exists that claims there was is a fraudulent document written probably in the time of Philo to lend support for his syncretism of Judaism with Platonic philosophy.

All we are saying is that there is no proof of a BC Septuagint, there is a legend of it in a fraudulent document that attempts to establish it as a historical fact. That evidence, which is all we have to know of it, necessarily disproves its existence. We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament, when that came about is unknown, and just because some of it matches the New Testament is not proof the Apostle's quoted it.

Rather, your dogma is more akin to some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists you deride that claim the King James Bible is inspired and Paul used it, when you assert that something of which the only evidence exists is post-Apostolic and the Apostle's used it.

It is more likely than not, and that is the only evidentiary presupposition we have, is that Alexandrian scribes brought the Greek Old Testament into line with the New Testament. We can clearly see this in the texts (e.g., Genesis 46:20-27 and Acts 7:14) and it's even more damning when we examine the Apocraphyl books and notice that they do the same thing - back translate the New Testament into the Apocrapha.

It was John Owen that pointed these things out 350 years ago and through which the authenticity of the Hebrew was upheld. It is the Protestant Confessional position that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is the authentic and legitimate tradition (WCF 1:8) and not the Greek Old Testament, we do after all reject the Apocrapha as being canonical. (see Romans 3:1-2) It was the Hebrews unto whom the oracles of God were committed, not the Alexandrian Greek scribes who added the Apocrapha to the Old Testament canon.

Look, friend. If I could get you to give a clear answer to a clear question, without Fundie style rhetorical logic, without going off onto other subjects, without anything but focusing in on answering the question, why do you say that the Letter of Aristreas is the only source for the "legend" of the Septuagint? If Philo lived literally during the same time as Christ and wrote that there was an annual celebration on the island that the Septuagint was translated to celebrate the making of the translation, then why isn't he a source?