Tuesday, February 23, 2016

LXX X-perts Deny LXX



Even the LXX X-perts admit there is no actual evidence for a BC LXX. Here is Sir Frederick Kenyon:

"A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these DO *NOT* GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed BEFORE ORIGEN; and this remains the GREATEST PROBLEM which confronts the TEXTUAL STUDENT of the SEPTUAGINT." "The Text of the Greek Bible", Sir Frederick Kenyon, (approx. 1920) p 35. 


        Brenton, the editor of the LXX, remarks -
"The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about a half century AFTER Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and HENCE the TEXT of the SEPTUAGINT became almost hopelessly MIXED up WITH that of OTHER VERSIONS." Brenton's Septuagint Introduction (Zondervan, from the original 1851), p vi.

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

In "Invitation To The Septuagint," Moises Silva & Karen Jobes, Baker Academic, 2000, "In effect, the great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labors so as to rediscover the form of the "Septuagint" in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily reached." p 53.

"We have no EVIDENCE that any Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior to the second century of this era." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 32.

        So, aside from the few scraps which predate Origen, they again admit they can't even reconstruct Origen's Hexapla, let alone any kind of "Septuagint." They don't have any EVIDENCE to work with. 

Monday, February 22, 2016

LXX FAMOUS AMOS


The LXX OT uses the NT term "Christ" in Amos 4:13. This pretty much seals the deal and proves that the LXX was written AFTER the New Testament and it copied FROM the NT, rather than the other way around, as the scholars claim.



David Daniels has a good article exposing the LXX at: https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp

Friday, February 19, 2016

LXX Goofs



It is quite comical to see just how shoddy mainstream biblical scholarship is. For example, it is common fare for mainstream biblical scholarship to state that the writer of Hebrews quoted from the LXX's rendering of Genesis 47:31 when he penned Hebrews 11:21. In other words, that the writer of Hebrews was copying the Greek LXX from Genesis 47:31. Of course, this assertion is ludicrous and is ignorantly made on the following basis ...


The Hebrew text states that Jacob "bowed himself upon the bed's head." The LXX declares that Jacob "bowed himself on the top of his STAFF." Naturally, since the writer of Hebrews used the word "STAFF" instead of "bed's head" he must be quoting the LXX - according to the THEORY, that is.


As is habitual with mainstream biblical scholarship, however, they have failed to observe the SIMPLE context. You see, in Genesis 47:31 Jacob is in the tent with Joseph ALONE. Just the two of them. In Hebrews 11:21, on the other hand, the context is ENTIRELY different. In this case, Jacob AND HIS SONS are in the tent with Joseph, an event which is found LATER in the Genesis passage in 48:1-12, and it is this LATTER passage that the writer of Hebrews is describing, NOT Genesis 47:31 which mainstream biblical scholarship so ignorantly presupposes. It gets better.


A straight-forward reading of the Hebrew reveals clearly what happened. Joseph, still in the prone position, leaned on his bed when Jacob first entered the tent in Genesis 47:31. But when Joseph brought his two sons into the tent later in Genesis 48, then Joseph SAT UP and LEANED UPON HIS STAFF. This LATTER event is what the writer of Hebrews is recording (all four persons are now present), and a SIMPLE adherence to context (which is really asking too much of mainstream bible scholars who don't even know what evidence is, let alone how to analyze or interpret it) would have prevented mainstream biblical scholars from making such a bad exhibition of themselves in this matter. There's more.


It becomes eminently clear that the writer of the LXX had the NT before him when he WROTE the LXX - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship ASSERTS. The writer of the LXX confused the context exactly like mainstream bible scholars have confused the context.


Accordingly, the writer of the LXX decided he would help God out and prevent the Holy Spirit from making an error. Consequently, the writer of the LXX interposed the Greek word for "STAFF" into Genesis 47:31 based on the Greek text of Hebrews 11:21, which he had in front of him as he penned the book of Genesis in Greek. In other words, the writer of the LXX decided he was going to harmonize Genesis with the book of Hebrews by clarifying the account in Genesis, only he - like mainstream bible scholars - didn't pay attention to the context and thus, not only did he fail to "harmonize" the account, but in fact introduced yet another of his many legions of errors into the text.


In other words, the writer of the LXX copied Genesis FROM the book of Hebrews - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship so ignorantly asserts.

LXX Levi



       Even if it was real, the Septuagint could not have been a legitimate copy of scripture.

        The claim for the Septuagint (AKA: LXX [70]) is that six scholars from each of the 12 tribes of Israel got together and translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek before the time of Christ, and Christ and the apostles quoted from the LXX. Never mind the fact that 12 x 6 = 72 instead of 70. That is a minor glitch compared to the major errors in the text. Many LXX proponents claim only the law (AKA: Pentateuch, books of Moses) was fully translated.

        We don't even have to investigate the major errors of the LXX, like having Methuselah survive the flood, or Goliath being only about 6 1/2 feet tall (and the NT mss that accompany them have goofs like having death swallowed up in "controversy" instead of victory, or having Jesus killed by the soldier's spear rather than willingly giving up the ghost prior to that). The LXX doesn't even get out of the batter's box. If members of each of the 12 tribes were responsible for it, that would make it an illegitimate scripture. The Old Testament was committed to the priestly tribe of Levi alone.

Deut 31:24-26 And it came to pass, when Moses made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.      

The covenant of Levi was with this tribe alone, to copy and guard the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the law.

Mal 2:7-8 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

Deut 17:18-19  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: [The king was to write his own personal copy of the law, which would force him to meditate on it. He got the official law from the priestly Levites.]

Ezra 7:6 This Ezra went up from Babylon: and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given. [Ezra was a Levite and a scribe of the law of God.]

1 Chron 16:4 And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel:

2 Chron 34:13-15  ... of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters. ... Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.  And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.
Not only that, but the claim is the 72 scholars met in Egypt to compile the LXX. That violates:

Deut 17:16 But he shall not ... cause the people to return to Egypt, ... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.        

After the New Testament was written, the scripture was translated into many languages (Acts 2:9-12). All believers in Christ became priests and responsible for the scripture (1 Tim 3:15), but before the NT was written, the OT was only legitimate under the care of the tribe of Levi.

LXX XEROX of NT



Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament

Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18 

        In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a list of Old Testament quotes showing the depravity of man and his rebellion against God. These citations are taken from various Old Testament books. The Hebrew texts do NOT contain these nine verses listed one after the other in any place. Instead, they are scattered throughout the Psalms and the book of Isaiah.        

Rom 3:10-18  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

3:10-12 (from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3.)
3:13 (from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3)
3:14 (from Psalm 10:7)
3:15 (from Isaiah 59:7)
3:16 (from Isaiah 59:7) 
3:17 (from Isaiah 59:8) 
3:18 (from Psalm 36:1)

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

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

Ps 14:1-3 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.         

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

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

LXX Takes a LICK



        There are a number of examples in the gospels where the Lord refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us a paraphrase of the passage, rather than a verbatim quote.

For example, Isaiah 42:1-4 is quoted in:

Matt 12:17-21 "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 actual quote in Isaiah 42:1-4 is somewhat different, but we can see the same general sense and expanded meaning given to us in Matthew's gospel.

Isa 42:1-2 "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 we read:

Isa 42:1-2 "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's obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX.  Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in synonymous terms.  God has the right to free-quote himself, because He is referring to what He Himself has inspired.  He knows how a passage can be limited or expanded. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.

LXX LAX



       The Septuagint (LXX) was *supposedly* a Greek translation of the Old Testament, BEFORE the New Testament, and is supposedly what Jesus and Paul quoted from.

        But there are a few (ahem!) minor problems with that claim, the main one being IT IS NOT TRUE. It is so thoroughly corrupt that no Christian with the spiritual discernment of a sea monkey could mistake it for any kind of scripture.

NOT B. C.        The EARLIEST mss. considered to be an LXX was done by Origen 200 years AFTER Christ - and NO copy of that is extant, so we really can't even trace it back to Origen's fifth column for certain. That's according to Sir Frederick Kenyon, (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.35). Confirmed by the editor of a contemporary LXX text, Brenton's Septuagint Introduction (Zondervan, from the original 1851), p ii. and "Invitation To The Septuagint," Moises Silva & Karen Jobes, Baker Academic, 2000.

NOT ENTIRE OT        The Letter of Aristeas is the piece of evidence that is appealed to as a claim that there was a pre-Christian Greek OT, but even that letter only made a claim for the Pentateuch - the first five books of Moses, not the entire OT.

        There are a few scraps of OT scriptures written in Hebrew, but that doesn't mean there was ever an entire OT done. I often jot down passages of scripture on scratch paper, and later toss them in the garbage. Does my garbage can then prove that the KJV is the originals? I have more scripture
on any wall of my house than exists of pre-BC Greek OT scraps. Apparently, my bathroom walls prove the KJV is the pure word of God.

NOT SCRIPTURAL!        The LXX got its name by supposedly having been written by six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (which makes 72 - an LXXII). But there is another (cough!) minor problem. The custodian of the Old Testament was the tribe of Levi alone - not the other tribes. Not only that, orthodox OT Jews were having a hard time with Paul's Gentile ministry well after the Christian era, they never would have submitted to an OT in a heathen, Gentile language. Thus, a Greek OT worked on by the other 11 tribes, is UNSCRIPTURAL in the first place. Even IF it existed, it was not an official scripture.

        Now there are also some (hack!) big problems with the LXX, as if the above weren't enough. For one, it contains the apocrypha AS part of the canon. The Jewish OT rejected the apocrypha.

        The main extant representatives of the LXX are the Alexandrian texts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) which include the OT and NT. They include such whoppers as:

WRONG DAY!* Gen 2:2 LXX has God ending His work on the SIXTH day instead of the SEVENTH.

METHUSELAH SURVIVES FLOOD!* Several genealogical goofs:

Gen 5:25 LXX = 167 years
Gen 5:28 LXX = 188 years
Gen 11:13 LXX = 430 years
Gen 11:17 LXX = 370 years
Gen 11:24 LXX = 79 years
Gen 11:25 LXX = 125 years

* Some of these errors lead to the conclusion that Methuselah had to survive 14 years beyond the flood!

PEE WEE GIANT!* 1 Sam 17:4 LXX = FOUR cubits, instead of SIX, making Goliath only about 6' 6", hardly a frightful giant to the seven foot plus King Saul and the armies of Israel.

MORE MUFFS:        The rest of these OT goofs are of lesser importance, but still show the LXX should be discarded as thoroughly corrupt.

* Jonah 3:4 LXX = Yet THREE days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. (instead of FORTY - the LXX can't count!)

* Deu 32:8 LXX = angels of God (instead of children of Israel)

* Gen 14:13 LXX = Abram the WANDERER (instead of HEBREW)

* 1 Sam 11:5 LXX = Saul came after the MORNING (instead of HERD)

* Hosea 11:1 LXX = called my CHILDREN out of Egypt (instead of SON)

* Jer 17:5 LXX omits "Thus saith the Lord"

* Isa 53:4 LXX omits "God"

* Isa 8:14 LXX Interpolates "And if thou shalt trust in him" at the beginning of the verse

        Here are some of the blatant boners in the Alexandrian New Testament:

BLASPHEMY!* Jesus being killed by the soldier in Matthew 27:49-50 instead of laying down His life freely.

HERESY!* Death being swallowed up into CONTROVERSY rather than victory in 1 Cor 15:54.

* Jesus praying for His disciples to be kept under the power of Satan in John 17:15.

STUPIDITY!* 1 Thess 2:7 says But we were BABIES among you (instead of gentle).

* Luke 23:45 where it says the sun was “eclipsed” during a full moon.

FACTUAL ERRORS!* The pool of Bethesda is misidentified as Bethzatha or Bethsaida in John 5:2.

* Judea is misidentified as Galilee in Luke 4:44.

* The Alexandrians say the sun was “eclipsed” during a full moon in Luke 23:45.

        Only two men alive today have actually collated the main LXX texts (aleph and B), Scott Jones (a friend of mine) and Reuben Swanson. Both attest to the numerous errors in those texts.

CREATING ERROR, NOT CORRECTING ERROR        The New Testament writers did not copy from the LXX, because it did not yet exist. The LXX writers copied from the NT to try to pass itself off as legitimate. One example that proves this is when the LXX tried to reconcile Gen 47:31 with Heb 11:21 (the passage where Jacob bowed upon the staff or bed). They copied the word in HEBREWS (staff) back into Genesis to make the "reconciliation" - which proves they had a copy of Hebrews on hand to make the 'correction' - UH OH! BUSTED! Another problem is that the account needs no reconciliation since it is talking about two different events (Gen. has Jacob with Joseph alone, Heb. has him additionally with Joseph's sons). The LXX tried to correct this supposed error and actually created a real error. OOPS!

        The Alexandrian Septuagint is hopelessly corrupt and should not be used to line a bird cage in case a parrot might accidentally repeat some of its nonsense.

Jesus did NOT quote the LXX



Many anti-KJVers make the claim that the supposed OT Greek Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible used by Jesus and the apostles. They refer to any of the times Jesus or the apostles quote the Old Testament. Their argument is that their quotations do not always match word-for-word. That can be attributed sometimes to the fact of going from OT Hebrew, to NT Greek, and in Jesus's case, being spoken in Aramaic. The other explanation is that God is able to paraphrase Himself if He wants, to clarify, expand, limit, or expound on what He said previously. As far as the LXX, the fact that some of the readings match it can be explained by if they were written AFTER the NT and purposely worded to match. But the LXX got caught with its pants down, making a few word 'corrections' to make the OT match the NT, where no correction was needed because the OT and NT shouldn't have matched in those instances (like Jacob leaning on his staff vs. bedpost). Such unwitting accidents show it did indeed copy from the already existing, Greek NT. Origen's version of the LXX, some 200 years after the NT, cannot be produced, and certainly no B.C. LXX can be produced.


The above are solid reason's refuting the contention that Jesus quoted the LXX, however, information from Kent Brandenburg's "Thou Shalt Keep Them" (along with Thomas Strouse and others) makes the case airtight. And they use the scripture to make their points.


STRIKE ONE


Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


I have used this verse often in the past to show that Jesus did not accept the apocrypha as valid (http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm).


In this verse, Jesus Christ Himself, reveals the three divisions of the Old Testament. They are the Law (also called the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books), and the Psalms (also called the writings). They are alternately known in the Jewish Masoretic Old Testament as the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim. Every book in the Masoretic OT, and the KJV OT, fits into one of those three divisions. None of the apocryphal books do.


Additionally, the LXX texts are not divided into the same book groupings as the OT Hebrew Masoretic, and they do contain apocryphal writings. Thus, Jesus did not consider the LXX as canonical scripture.


STRIKE TWO


Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


This verse also attests to the Hebrew Masoretic text, in which the book order begins with Abel, who was killed in the first book of the Masoretic OT (Genesis) and ends with Zacharias, who was killed in the last book in the Masoretic OT (2 Chronicles).


The Greek LXX is not arranged like the OT Hebrew Bible, it ends with Malachi. Thus Jesus was not referring to the Septuagint, He was referring to the Hebrew Masoretic text.


STRIKE THREE, YER OUT!


Matt 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.


As with the other examples, this points to the Hebrew, not the Greek. The LXX doesn't contain jots and tittles, but the Masoretic text does. Therefore Jesus had to be quoting from the Hebrew Masoretic OT, not the Greek Septuagint OT.


So here we have three solid evidences that Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, not the Greek LXX Old Testament. The latter two show that Jesus did not quote from the apocrypha. The first example also shows He did not regard it as canonical scripture.

Jesus Quoting Isaiah




Luke 4:14-21 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. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Isa 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;

Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

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

"When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much 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 READ VERBATIM the scroll explicitly.

John Gill, also a master of Rabbinic literature stated with regard to this very verse in his commentary "...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."

And he stated just previous to this "...interpreting it thus, "to the prisoners," "be ye revealed to the light" now because persons in prison are in darkness, and see no light, therefore they are represented as blind; and both are the case of sinners, they are in the prison of sin and of the law, and are blind, ignorant, and insensible of their state; until Christ both opens the prison, and sets them free, and opens their eyes, and gives them spiritual sight; when he says to the prisoners go forth, to them that are in
darkness show yourselves."

This is another passage where the so-called LXX adapted itself to the NT, not the other way around.

LXX-perts Deny LXX



Even the LXX X-perts admit there is no actual evidence for a BC LXX. Of course they affirm the LXX in other places because they have a $take in it - but they admit, however unwittingly, that the fact don't support their beliefs.

 Here is Sir Frederick Kenyon:

"A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information AS TO ORIGEN'S HEXAPLARIC TEXT and PARTICULAR PASSAGES in the other columns, BUT THESE DO NOT GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text AS IT EXISTED BEFORE ORIGEN; AND THIS REMAINS THE GREATEST PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTS THE TEXTUAL STUDENT OF THE SEPTUAGINT." "The Text of the Greek Bible", Sir Frederick Kenyon, (~1920) p 35.

Now comes Brenton, who edited a contemporary issuing of the LXX:

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

With regard to being able to recover a pre-Origenian LXX, Brenton then remarks -

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

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

Here are a few statements by Jobes & Silva, both of whom are noted LXX scholars and both of whom BELIEVED that the NT writers made use of the LXX - 

In "Invitation To The Septuagint," Moises Silva & Karen Jobes, Baker Academic, 2000, "In effect, the great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labors so as to rediscover the form of the "Septuagint" in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily reached." p 53.

In other words, aside from the few scraps which predate Origen, they can't even reconstruct Origen's Hexapla, let alone any kind of "Septuagint." They don't have any EVIDENCE to work with. 

"We have no EVIDENCE that any Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior to the second century of this era." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 32. (emphasis mine)

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


LXX Overview



THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT:

The most noted Old Testament translated into Greek is the Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The conventional thought is that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text by Hellenistic Jews during the period from 275 to 100 BC at Alexandria, Egypt. And, as pointed out by scholars such as Ralph W. Klein, the LXX used a differing Hebrew text and not that of the Masorictic Text type, as reflected in some of the finding among the DSS. The LXX was used by Jerome in producing his Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic Church, and the LXX remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church. This accounts for the additional books found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches known as the Apocrypha, because they are contained in the text of the LXX.

The association of the Latin numbers LXX (meaning 70) with the Septuagint comes from the legend concerning the origin of this Greek translation. According to the Letter of Aristeas seventy Jewish scholars were chosen to translate the Law of Moses into Greek so that it could be added to the great library of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria, Egypt. The letter states that the High Priest in Jerusalem sent 72 scholars to the Egyptian king. The High Priest writes, " In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety." (Letter of Aristeas 2:34-35). Thus six scholars from the twelve tribes number seventy-two (it is to be assumed that the 70 is merely a rounding off of the 72).

One wide-spread myth concerning the LXX is an old story which states that the translators worked on their translation alone and compared their work each morning, only to find that each had translated the passage exactly the same. This, of course, has no historical foundation and some have falsely applied this story to the translators of the King James Bible. However, stories such as this one caused some to claim inspiration for the LXX. Dr. Karlfried Froehlich notes this and writes, " Inspiration was also claimed for the Greek translation of the 'Seventy', which was endorsed by Alexandrian Jewish authorities. In Christian eyes, the legend of the Septuagint's miraculous origin, first told in the Letter of Aristeas, then elaborated by Philo, and further embellished by Christian authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Augustine, even rendered the Septuagint superior to the Hebrew original." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 310).

Even if the story given in the Letter of Aristeas were true, the Greek translation deals only with the first five books of the Old Testament. Most scholars note that there are differences in style and quality of translation within the LXX and assign a much greater time frame than the seventy-two days allotted in the Letter of Aristeas. In his book, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, Ralph Klein notes, " the Letter of Aristeas is riddled with many historical improbabilities and errors. . .And yet, however legendary and improbable the details, many still believe that some accurate historical facts about the LXX can be distilled from Aristeas: (1) the translation began in the third century BC; (2) Egypt was the place of origin; and (3) the Pentateuch was done first." (p. 2).

Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, " The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree.

The most noted copy of the LXX is that found in the Hexapla by Origen. Origen produced an Old Testament with six translations paralleled together, called the Hexapla which means sixfold. The fifth column was the LXX. (The columns of the Hexapla were as follows: 1. The Hebrew text. 2. The Hebrew transliterated into Greek. 3. The Greek translation of Aquila. 4. The Greek translation of Symmachus. 5. The LXX. 6. The Greek translation of Theodotion.) However, we do not have Origen's Hexapla (with the exception of a few limited fragments). Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote, " A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed before Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint. Until we can do that, we are not in a position fully to utilize the evidence of the Greek for the recovery of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew." (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.35). In other words, we cannot fully reconstruct Origen's fifth column, let alone a pre-Origenian Septuagint.

Origen's LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and Eusebius. There were additional Greek translations of the Old Testament during this time which were also contained in the Hexapla, such as the work by Aquila and Theodotion. Some scholars believe that the translation produced by Theodotion replaced the LXX in the book of Daniel so that the readings there are really that of Theodotion and not of the LXX. However, others have claimed that this is not the case. Therefore, concerning Origen's Hexapla and the LXX the best scholars can say is that cited by Ernst Wurthwein, " Although no authentic manuscript of the Hexaplaric Septuagint has survived, there are manuscripts which represent the text of Origen more or less closely." (The Text of the Old Testament, p.57). Two such manuscripts which represent the text of Origen are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which the student will recall from our study of New Testament textual criticism.