Did the LXX exist before the NT?
 

I am starting this thread in response to a suggestion by Steven Avery to review some of the teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman [not as a means of personal attack or support of him] from a Biblical prospective.

One topic that is of interest to many is whether or not the Septuagint (LXX) existed B.C. and whether or not it was used by the NT writers as a reference; or conversely, is it a figment of the mind based on the work of early century heretics?

Sam Gipp questions its existence, so I suppose that Dr. Ruckman does also (not having read his teachings on this specifically). Matthew Verschuur supports its existence (right, Matthew?). What are the facts?

No, the LXX is a myth, says Ruckman. There is a chapter dedicated to "The Mythological LXX" in Ruckman's The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. (I am not a Ruckmanite.)

I am not addressing Ruckman's comments here - but from what I have read regarding the Septuagint, ALL that existed prior to Christ was the Pentateuch translated into Greek. The first actual account and copies of all the OT in Greek were done by Origen (there were no copies of the OT in Greek found that existed prior to this time).

Alfred Edersheim (a 19th century messianic Jewish scholar) makes mention of this, and quotes or refers to Josephus to back up his statements. Edersheim's book that he makes this comment is The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah. If you have the book in electronic format or part of a Bible program, you can search it for "Pentateuch" and find his comments. In other words, it is not a 20th century philosophy or invention that the whole Septuagint did not exist prior to the time of Christ.

That's right, and Origen lived after the Ascension of Christ.I have this book. The subject on LXX is on pg 23 to 30.In other words, it is a 20th century invention that the LXX, partially or wholly, existed prior to Christ.

Wow, I've believed for years that the Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek done by Jewish scholars during about three hundred years up to the time of Christ. I had no idea anybody disputed this. As I've understood it, it began with the Torah or Pentateuch about 300 BC or so, and then other books were added over the next few centuries -- not all perhaps, but most or something like that. I also understood that the way the New Testament phrases its references to the Old Testament shows that it was based on the Septuagint Greek translation.

I can't see why on earth anyone would doubt that such a translation existed. It was clearly needed by the Jews who were scattered throughout the Hellenic world of the time, and that's why it was ordered to be done.

I hope you all will be supplying evidence one way or the other instead of just assertions that this or that person believes this or that about it.

Whether or not it existed is less important than whether or not any of the LXX was actually used by Christ or the authors of the NT. Modernists interested in pressing the case that corrupt translations are "a-okay" try to convince people that the NT itslef contains quotations from the LXX. It does not -- where the LXX agrees with the NT it is simply because the LXX got it right.

Says who? It was needed by academics of the day. The Jews would not have trusted their texts to the scholars that produced the LXX.

I suggest you read Chapter 6 of Crowned With Glory which addresses the LXX question. Here are some quotes:

For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed that Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.

My thoughts at this point, being simply musing based on some information that I have read:

The story of the LXX (the seventy) seems very fanciful on its surface. The idea that someone could gather 6 scholars from each tribe, long after 10 of the tribes were totally scattered to every nation, seems to me to be impossible. The claim that it was produced in 72 days by 72 individuals whose separate translations were identical (without collaboration) is impossible outside the direct control of the Holy Spirit. If that were the case, then there would not be the significant errors and omissions present. These arguments against its origin weaken its validity as Scripture.

So the idea is that the LXX was corrupt? I haven't heard the argument in favor of the modern translations based on this myself, but I'll take your word for it and read up more on it.

Well, I know the Jews didn't and still don't like the idea of having their Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek, and I know it was forced upon them by the Greek authorities, but I also understood that it was highly qualified Jews who did the translation and that it was well done, at least the Pentateuch.

Yes, I knew they also had the Hebrew and it was used in the temple, that Paul had studied Hebrew as the Pharisees did, and so on. But that doesn't mean that a Greek version of the OT wasn't also in common usage.

However, apparently there's a lot more to learn here, so carry on. I'm probably not going to get to do much research on my own for a while so I hope this thread is chock full of facts and evidence.

The second thought that I have had as I mused:

I do not have the data at hand to answer the following, so it is mere speculation at this point.

How many OT quotes are made in the NT?
What percentage of those have exact or very close resemblance to the LXX?
Are there any writers who quote OT passages (of reasonable statistical number) whose quotes also predominately align with the LXX, indicating that this writer had access to a copy for reference?

My guess is that the overall percentage is low, and that no particular writer showed an affinity to the supposed LXX.

Whether or not there were Greek translations of parts (the Law as an example) of the OT is not the question. The claim is that the LXX existed and was in wide-spread use during the first century AD. This would have been difficult considering the logistics of distribution of many hand-written copies, which non-rulers like certain Galilean fishermen would likely be unable to obtain for personal use (unless the library at Alexandria had a web site for easy access.)

That's not all. Acording to Origen, there were seventy-two translators from twelve tribes, thus violating the OT instructions pertaining to the OT upkeep: the tribe of Levi alone was to be the custodian of the Scriptures (Mal 2:4-7; Ezra 7:12; Deut. 17:18; 31:25; 33:10).

Connie, you may not take these statements as facts, for indeed they are not. However, they are at least evidence from a logical prospective. The one piece of evidence that is a fact is what is available today. We have a copy that dates no earlier than 250+ years after the completion of the NT. That copy is clearly riddled with error when compared to the Hebrew OT.

Even the Pentateuch in the Septuagint contains additions and corruptions. The genealogies contain extra names AND changes in the ages of the patriarchs when they had their children.

OK, I'm listening. I'm interested in this subject now, though I won't have much time for it for a while.

But I have to add that having a surviving copy from a particular year really doesn't mean much about when the original was created, OR when the errors entered into it.

No - but if there are ABSOLUTELY NO copies of the Septuagint (except for the Pentateuch) in existance that were prior to Origen (or even records of the whole OT in Greek prior to Origen), then there is no reason to believe that there ever was one translated before the NT era.

I thought Brother Tim was saying that the copy from around 250 years after the completion of the NT was the earliest in existence. Are you saying that there are surviving copies of the Pentateuch that are earlier?

But unless I'm seriously misreading you, your logic is very flawed in any case. Manuscripts simply did not survive long (they still don't), the materials would wear away and finally disintegrate. The only copies of any early writing that we have just happened to be preserved for one reason or another against the ravages of time. The Dead Sea Scrolls survived so well because they were preserved in jars in caves. Otherwise we have no reason to expect that anything from before the NT era would have survived.

We have ABSOLUTELY NO copies of the New Testament earlier than the Alexandrian texts on which the new versions are based -- I've heard both 2nd century and 3rd century for those -- but we certainly assume those were preceded by not only the originals but many hundreds of copies of them, and that the only copies we have of any of the Greek texts are simply some that happened to survive.

So why would you assume that there was no Septuagint in existence before the few copies that happen to have survived?

Sounds to me like Origen simply happened to be the one who wrote about the Septuagint. Certainly doesn't mean it originated with him or in his time.

My limited understanding of the Septuagint is that it is a multi headed monster. Generally speaking, it is referring to an OT translation originating from Alexandria Egypt, supposedly created by 72 scribes of Israel. There does seem to be fragmentary evidence of B.C. Greek translations of the OT. The 5th column of Origen's Hexapla is supposedly a revision of an older (B.C.) Greek translation referred to by textual critics today as the LXX / Septuagint, though there are "several" literary documents referred to as the Septuagint. The LXX has inaccuracies in the ages of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and adds 2000 years to the geneaologies in Genesis. What is at stake here is concept, or words that are inspired. If the Septuagint, with it's glaring inaccuracies and differences from the Masoretic text can be called the word of God, so can all the other perversions. I have not read it, but Floyd Nolan Jones has written an exhaustive critique of the Septuagint. He says it is found to be the two manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and especially true of Vaticanus B. I believe the history of it, its myth, Alexandrian source, and piecemeal construction make it a useful commentary at best.

There are no extant copies prior to that time - NOR any written record from any source prior to that time referring to a pre-Christian Septuagint. Surely, if there was any OT in Greek before Christ, someone would have referred to it or quoted it - yet there is no record of it until Origen - several hundred years afterwards, in a book he put together of various OT translations. Origen attirbutes it to pre-Christian scholars, yet there is only this heretic's and Bible corrector's own words for it - not any outside proof.

I just took a brief glance at some Wikipedia entries and find it treated as historical fact that the Septuagint existed, also that Philo referred to it in the century before Christ and that Jerome used it in his translation of the Vulgate Bible. So that is more than just Origen given as source of information, Jerry.

A comparison of a verse in Genesis is given that does show an amazing divergence between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. Obviously there's a lot of stuff going on here I'll never have the time to slog through.

There's more to this, Jerry, as I vaguely recalled but couldn't remember clearly. Here's one source on it:

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

That's a worthless argument since none of you, yea none of us are Levites either. Should we all just never print the Old Testament because we aren't Levites?

I think the LXX did exist BC, but that the Jews stopped using it after Christianity was established, and Origen corrupted it with his Hexapla and what we have now that we call the LXX is a copy of Origen's corruption and not representative of the BC LXX that no longer exists. Can I prove it? No, and I don't care to anyhow.

Interesting theory! It bridges several of the issues.

The letter of Aristeas is a joke and a complete fabrication. It's better for all involved to just study the Word and forget about this thread. The study of lies to find the truth is not profitable. First study the truth, then you will spot the lies.

People make assertions right and left. The Septuagint didn't exist before Origen, the letter of Aristeas is a fabrication, Origen corrupted the text, Philo recognized it, lots of bald assertions everywhere, very few actual facts. Oh well.

That's a surprise coming from you. It's not an argument, it's a known fact from the OT days; and it has nothing to do with us. Your rebuttal is pointless.

Connie, I don't mean to be critical, but you are asking for something that doesn't exist. As with many things about Biblically-related history, there are differing and conflicting beliefs based on who is being considered the "expert". If there was a list of simple facts, then there would be no debate on the issue to begin with. This is a perfect example of why a consensus revision of the KJB is impossible, even if it were determined to be needed. (we can't even agree with that!)

Hey, George and Steven, notice whose name is not being referenced ?

Who? Ruckman?

I meant if you are using it to argue that there could have been no LXX then it is a worthless argument. Even though I believe there was an LXX, I don't take the letter of Aristeus (however you spell that) as fact.

In His earthly ministry, Jesus seems to reflect how the Jews thought of the uncircumision (Gentiles):
Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

If the LXX did exist, I don't think the Jews, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the NT writers would use a Bible in the language of "dogs". What do you think?

Furthermore, did the LXX contain the Apocrypha? Many believe the existence of LXX prior to the writing of the NT. I was able to borrow Dr. Ruckman's book in Manuscript Evidence from a Bible teacher a long time ago. If I remember right, Ruckman believes that the LXX was written by Origen in his fifth column of the hexapla.

Josephus - Tanach (OT) Histories not in Greek - Antiquities
 

does the Greek OT 'get it right' on the NT closer agreements
 

Floyd Jones, early Greek OT fragments
 

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled. My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all.

Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

Welcome. I actually picked up this information on a skeptic board, where it was being used for confused reasons. Yet the obvious implications, which we see clearly and 'scholarship' has missed, are totally compelling.

It is as close to a one-quote (ok..two) settlement of a dispute as you are likely to see. How anyone can claim that there was a circulating full Greek OT at the time of Jesus and the apostolic writings of the NT, in the wake of the Josephus reference to the lack of the history books in Greek, is a real puzzle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all....Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

Yes. This is one of those malleable terms, and that is one of the problems in ever using it without ultra-caution (I generally use 'Greek OT'). 'LXX' or 'Septuagint' is meant to give an impression of antiquity (what occurred c 250 BC) to MSS that are 4th century and later, even knowing the ultra-squirrelly transmissional history of the first centuries AD. Even some in scholarship realms recoil at the loose usage of the term.

Shalom,
Steven

"ultra-squirrelly" - is that Hebrew or Greek? :)

I must have not been clear. Many people try to prove the validity of the LXX by saying that the NT writers quoted from it. My point is that this is a poor argument and that if the LXX agrees with the Textus Receptus on a particular "translation," it is not because the NT writers quoted the LXX.

Since when is Wickedpedia a sound source on spiritual and textual issues?

Jerome lived around the same time as Origen - so that is no proof for a Greek OT existing before Christ.

This was the quote I was referring to by Edersheim (the rest of the paragraph is mine - what is in quotations is from Edersheim - I included the rest as commentary on Origen):

Doing a search in the link Steven gave above, shows that this is on page 19 of that edition.

But why does Paul quote Old Testament passages so differently from what we have from the Hebrew? If he wasn't quoting some pre-existing Greek version, what was he doing? And secondly, why wasn't he gungho in KJVO-type fashion to call people Bible correctors for having thoroughly rather than throughly in their Bibles? He quotes Habakkuk 1:5 "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you" as "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you" in Acts 13:41. This is a KJVO nightmare. How did he change "among the heathen" to "ye despisers" and how did "wonder marvellously" change into "and perish"? Was he quoting some sub-par Greek translation that everyone was used to? Was he quoting from memory and not getting it quite right? Was Luke writing it down from memory and not getting what Paul said quite right? Was he making his own OT translation on the fly, and if so, why is it so different? These are all questions that Bibleprotector (more than any other) must needs consider. Here he is straining out the nat of betrayeth vs bewrayeth (even though they means the same thing!) but Paul is saying "and perish" where the text he is refering to says "wonder marvellously."

BTW, the LXX that we have today doesn't match very many NT quotations of the OT. It is clear that if the NT writers were quoting a Greek translation of Scripture, it is certainly NOT the LXX that we have today.