The Character of God’s Words [Septuagint is a Fraud]

The Dean Burgon Society ^ | July, 2005 | H. D. Williams, M.D.

[Titanites]

SO, WHAT IS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?

The questions, probabilities, possibilities, problems and use related to the imaginary Septuagint proposed by individuals such as Karen Jobes, Ph.D., Moises Silva, Ph.D., Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) have been answered by men in the Dean Burgon Society as well as Dean Burgon himself. In addition, what is so appallingly apparent in the liberal’s dialogue is the paucity of discussion of the Received or Traditional Greek and the Masoretic Text by name. They skirt the issue by glancing comments about recensions, but never, ever discuss the possible implications of thousands of texts from many authors and countries in many languages attesting to the preservation of the Received Text.

Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro and Dr. Floyd Jones have written two poignant astute documents, which are available from Bible For Today concerning the so-called Septuagint. They resoundingly trounce the wild assumptions of the modernistic Septuagint scholars by simple clear concise statements.

Dr. Jones makes a clear statement at the beginning of his treatise on the Septuagint about what is known concerning the Septuagint. He states:

"The Septuagint (LXX) is a very old translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) into Hellenistic Greek. This statement alone is almost the only hard fact concerning this translation that is verifiable."

The other known fact about the misnomer, Septuagint, is that it is a non-entity. The name is adapted from a fraudulent document, Letter of Aristeas. The only extant Letter is an eleventh century document. Today, the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.). This is the real recension as opposed to the theoretical recensions of the Received Greek and Hebrew Texts. Codex B is the 5^th (fifth) column of Origin’s Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5^th (fifth) column the LXX (See the picture on page 5 of this work). This may be observed in the fragment of the Hexapla by Origen found at Milan, Italy in 1896 and published in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by Henry Barclay Swete D.D. in 1902.

Dr. DiVietro says:

"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usual…The Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."

Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of "the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135" A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.

There have been many revisions of GTO. For example, Hesychius of Alexandria (martyred c. 311 A. D.) and Lucian of Antioch, an Arian, (martyred 311) made revisions. There have been dozens of revisions through the centuries. A few of the more recent revisions are "the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parson, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, and Rahlfs 1935 edition,"

Jerome (340-420 A.D.), a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo, ridicules the GTO often in his letters. However, the texts he used for his translations for Rome were of "the Alexandrian text type." Before reading the following quotes from Jerome’s works, recall he is removed from Origin (182-251 A.D.) by over 150 years. A comparison is to imagine a student in 2005 trying to reconstruct a particular history in 1850 in America without the aid of computers, phones, extensive libraries, airplane travel, and other modern conveniences. In addition, we must remember Jerome was opposed to the independence of local churches from Rome represented by the Waldensians. Lastly, he was obviously duped by the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas, which was allegedly commented on by the Alexandrian Aristobulus, the Neo-plantonist Philo, and the Roman historian, Josephus the Jew. They all add embellishments to the story of the Letter.

Dr. Phil Stringer, President, Landmark Baptist College, states:

Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine’s assertion that the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often don’t match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New Testament.

From Jerome’s writings, one can quickly ascertain that Jerome is confused by the term, Septuagint, and denigrated it by the following quotes. Jerome says:

"How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacriledge either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery."

Let my critics tell me why the Septuagint introduces here the words ‘look thou upon me.’" "For its rendering is as follows, ‘My God, my God, look thou upon me, why hast thou forsaken me.’"

It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks.

Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches, either because it is the first of all the versions in time, made before the coming of Christ, or else because it has been used by the apostles (only however in places where it does not disagree with the Hebrews).

The preceding quote reveals that Jerome was duped, also. We know the Apostles did not quote from the "imaginary" (there is no solid evidence it existed before Christ) Septuagint.

Doubtless you already possess the version from the Septuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek. [my emphasis]

From the previous quote, we should now understand that "the LXX" is just one of the many revisions of the GTO.

Origen, whilst in his other books he has surpassed all others, has in the Song of Songs surpassed himself. He wrote ten volumes upon it, which amount to almost twenty thousand lines, and in these he discussed, first the version of the Seventy Translators, then those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and lastly, a fifth version which he states that he found on the coast of Atrium, with such magnificence and fullness, that he appears to me to have realized what is said in the poem:

However, no Greek "version of the Seventy Translators" has ever been found, and specifically, no Greek B.C. Song of Songs text. In addition, Jerome goes on to say:

Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. [my emphasis]

Surely, the previous quote makes clear the confusion surrounding the Greek text reported by the Letter even during Jerome’s days. Obviously, he was not sure how many, if any, of the Old Testament books had been translated. The following quote establishes that "deceitful" translators also perplexed Jerome

But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—heretics, who, by their deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salvation, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are expounded by churchmen; [then] ought not I, a Christian, born of Christian parents, and who carry the standard of the cross on my brow, and am zealous to recover what is lost, to correct what is corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the mysteries of the Church, ought not I, let me, ask, much more to escape the reprobation of fastidious or malicious readers? [my emphasis and addition for clarity]

Remember, Origen used the "judaising heretics" versions to make his revision, which is Codex B, the favorite corrupted text of the modernists. The next quote makes it obvious that Origen’s Old Testament Greek text, composed 150 years earlier than Jerome’s existence, was already being called "the Seventy."

I have toiled to translate [and revise—see above and below, HDW] both the Greek versions of the Seventy, and the Hebrew which is the basis of my own, into Latin. [In other words, Jerome made his own revision. HDW.]

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavor. [my emphasis] [Even Jerome rejected the apocrypha included in the GTO]

In the following quote, Jerome is not clear what he means by "descent of three steps." However, his additional comments above and below lead me to believe that he thought the three steps had corrupted "the Seventy." The comments in the middle of Jerome’s quote to follow are made so that there is no ambiguity. It is interesting in the quote to follow that Jerome confirms Dean Burgon’s comments concerning the "variety" of texts on p. 16

I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. [In other words, even though it is "corrupted" Jerome will no longer fight his adversaries, HDW]

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. [This is denied. There is no evidence Matthew wrote in Hebrew. HDW] We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius,, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.

THE AGENDA CONCLUDED

So why are "scholars" spending millions of hours and millions of dollars to "reconstruct" a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which are often written or "corrected" by unbelievers? There have been many reasons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle John record these words for us, "Never man spake like this man," [Jn. 7:46] because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of God’s words because "Never man spake like this man." His true words frighten men, because if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan and man have fought this authority "from the beginning."

If the truth about the Received Texts (Masoretic and Greek Traditional Text) can be discredited by assumptions and theories, then men can claim we have no absolute authority. Scholars are free to make up their own texts to promote their philosophies. They are free to ignore the precision (jot and tittle) and they are free from following precisely "the ark of the covenant" (see the Introduction to this work)

Dr. Phil Stringer in a recent newsletter gave an opinion why "so many ‘scholars’ [are] so devoted to the Septuagint." He states:

Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the apocrypha in their Bibles. Their reasoning goes like this: ‘Christ used and honored the Septuagint, the Septuagint includes the apocrypha, so Christ honored and authorized the apocarypha.’ Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon.

The author of this paper is certain that Dr. Stringer’s reason is correct. However, the underlying spiritual problem exhibited by the Catholic religion is the refusal to come under God’s authority. They would rather place their (man’s) tradition on equal footing (as they stated at the Council of Trent), and reject the authority of His preserved words. For anyone to claim the GTO (Origen’s Greek Text) is "the word of God" in light of the confusion surrounding the text as well as the text exhibiting a very "loose," "corrupted translation" is very suspect. Dr. Stringer is correct when he states:

"After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we?...If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation." [specific is another word for precise, HDW]

Dr. Floyd Jones in his book asks: "Why then do conservatives uphold the LXX?" Dr. Jones’ answer to his own question is (to summarize) that conservatives fear that the Received Text cannot be supported by scholarship, history, and internal proof without THE GTO.

Dr. Phil Stringer in his article asks: "But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof?" Dr. Stringer’s answer to his own question is:

"Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists).

One cannot escape the reason for the fall of man even in these situations. If man cannot receive "[a]n inerrant (without error), verbal (each word), plenary (every word), inspired (God breathed, infallible (will not fail), Word of God," as his sole authority with all its life giving promises, he will be insecure and rely on man’s words or "self.".

Finally, if we even use the misnomer, Septuagint or LXX, we are in a way affirming the existence of a document needed by the liberals to promote their theories of recensions, to allow them to "construct" a text more in line with their philosophies, and to assist them in rejecting the authority of a legal document, the words of God. Let us stop using the misnomer and give the text of Origen, principally Codex B another name, the Greek Text of Origen, the GTO.

The Scripture establishes some harsh warnings about the sanctity of the LORD’s words in many ways and in many verses. For example, the LORD says near the beginning of the Scripture:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. [Deut. 4:2]

And near the middle of the 66 books of the Bible, he says:

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." [Proverbs 30:5-6]

And he repeats the following well known admonition at the end of the Bible:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Rev. 22:18-19]

[OLD REGGIE]

Might it be worthwhile first to agree on what you mean by "The Septuagint"? That is, a single, complete, accepted copy of The Septuagint.

For example:

The OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT "Bible" of the early Church.

In the 4th century, some Church fathers, especially those who debated with the Jews, like Jerome, favored the shorter Hebrew Canon. Some Church fathers like Ambrose and Augustine favored the larger canon of the Septuagint. Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522]. Jerome while favoring the shorter canon, several times in his writings cited Books from the larger canon as Scripture. [S&W, p. OT 434] The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon. [S&W, pp. OT 434-435; JBC, p. 517]

The Septuagint?????

[NYer]

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Titanites]

That would explain why God's word (the bible) takes the back seat to your religious tradition...

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while [the] ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

If so, does your tradition believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, in accordance with Scripture?

[Iscool]

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

And interesting ploy you guys use...I have yet to see a Catholic discuss any scripture posted by a non Catholic...

Clinton didn't invent Triangulation...He got it from you guys...

[AnAmericanMother]

A comparison is to imagine a student in 2005 trying to reconstruct a particular history in 1850 in America without the aid of computers, phones, extensive libraries, airplane travel, and other modern conveniences.

Hmmmm. Back when I wrote my thesis (about the time of the First Afghan War - no, really, in 1976) . . . we didn't have computers (actually, we had computers, but they were huge room-sized behemoths that had to be fed spools of paper tape and reams of punch cards that always seemed to fall on the floor out of order.) I didn't have an extensive library to work with. I reconstructed a particular history in 1862-1865 from original documents preserved in my family, plus courthouse records which I had to blow the dust off of and copy by hand (no photocopies allowed because the originals were so fragile). I didn't use an airplane (just a motor car). I did use the telephone, but so did Alexander Graham Bell, so I think that's o.k.

Point is, I did it. And I can still read that incredible flowery clerk's handwriting that was current at the time, as well as crossed letters (but not double-crossed - can't read those).

[Titanites]

And interesting ploy you guys use...

And your answer is...?

I have yet to see a Catholic discuss any scripture posted by a non Catholic...

Then you must not be reading any of the posts by Catholics.

[AnAmericanMother]

Actually, in Mark 1:23 the man possessed by a demon cried out to Christ (actually I think it was the demon - he should have kept his mouth shut because he was promptly evicted).

Seriously, lots of people asked Jesus directly for help for themselves. The woman with the issue of blood. And the blind man by the road to Jericho cried out, "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!" Also, the leper fell to the ground and said, "If you are willing, you can make me clean."

But your point is a good one - Jesus was especially compassionate to those who came seeking help for others.

[Cvengr]

The nire I study if the ministry of the Holy SPirit, the more I have bcome convinced that the import of Scriptueal study is to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, thereby allowwing God the Holy Spirit make the LOGOS perceptible to the student and deliver that faith to the believer. All faith is from God, and when we begin to rely on human transltions rather than His work in us, we fail to allow Him to place the faith in us.

The arguments regarding literacy of translation IMHO are moot when one considers the enabling ministry of the Holy SPirit in us when we study Scripture through faith in Him. Let Him do all the work of edifying our spirit and soul and heart, rather than attempting to counterfeit His work by our own soulish perspectives.

GB

[AlaninSA]

Nothing written by this group of crackpots can be considered accurate.

[onedoug]

Even the classic temple chumash, The Pentatuch and Haftorahs by the late Rabbi JH Hertz references The King James version as a source in his translation from the original Hebrew.

[Titanites]

I am sure the KJV is a decent translation, with the exception being the deleted books. However, I'm not sure how it can be claimed that it is "God honored".

[onedoug]

"If I knew Him I'd be Him."

Though I'd think God would "honor" His oldest, wisest and most widely distributed "senses" of Himself.

[bornacatholic]

my version of Christianity is better than yours,

*Jesus' version of Christianity is better than Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox etc etc

N'Yeah, N'yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, isn't Latin.

[bornacatholic]

Amen, brother. The Council at Jamnia was held for just that reason - those pesky converts :)

[bornacatholic]

Yeah. You're point?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Amen, brother. The Council at Jamnia was held for just that reason - those pesky converts :)

Yup just like those early church councils were called. Those pesky hair-ticks.

[the808bass]

Where you been hiding?

Where all good Charismaniacs were born...under rocks. New job and new baby and whatknot has kept me pretty busy, but I've learned enough to slack off now. I trust you're doing well.

[Vicomte13]

There's nothing wrong with the KJV, as far as it goes.

The English of the KJV translation is antiquated, and difficult for modern readers to understand without quite a bit of education. Literacy is not a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and having had a class in Shakespearean English certainly isn't!

There are many translations of the Bible which are very scholarly and in more modern English. Also, when the KJV was translated, they had the Vulgate, they had some copies of the Greek textus receptus. They had the Masoretic Text of the Hebrews. But they did NOT have the advantage that modern scholars have of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are almost 1000 years older than the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic Text (which dates from the 900s AD). They didn't have the hundreds of ancient manuscripts that have been uncovered in the intervening four centuries.

Still, there's nothing wrong with the KJV as such, and if someone absolutely INSISTS on using it, then I am more than willing to do so - provided we use an original 1611 version, which contains the Deuterocanonica (the so-called "Apocrypha"). Alternatively, we can use a modern KJV for everything else, but have to get the Deuterocanonica from a Catholic Bible. If we want the language to be comparable, I guess the Douai-Rheims translation from the same time period as the KJV will suffice. Some folks just love those "Thees" "Thous" "Ye" and other archaisms. I usually give them a little test and ask them to conjugate certain verbs in King James' English, just to see the extent to which they really comprehend the meaning of "thou" and its grammatical place in the language; to wit: it is NOT a term of respect, but the contrary, it is a term of extreme familiarity which is OFFENSIVE when used to another human being to whom one owes respect. It is the equivalent of "Tu" in French, which will get you beaten up by the police if you use it today. Some folks know, but most that I have done my little test with can't conjugate verbs in Shakespearean English, and think "Thee" and "Thou" are more respectful than plain old "You".

Anyway, conceding the point and using the KJV is perfectly fine by me. If using any other Bible is a stumbling block for some folks, then we'll use the KJV and that forecloses a whole line of utterly superfluous argument, such as the one that was the subject of this thread. The guy JUST wants to use the KJV? Great. We'll use it when talking with him. It doesn't change anything substantive, at all, if we use the 1611 version anyway. Then we can get down to the matter of content, and he'll still prove to be wrong.

[bornacatholic]

.That would explain why God's word (the bible) takes the back seat to your religious tradition...

The New Testament is Tradition written down, but, it is not the fullness of Tradition, If it was, it would state that.

Absent the Catholic Church, you would not even have the NT with which to attack us :)

Please take a few minutes to draft an explanation as to how your particular community had a blessed thing to do with writing a single letter,a single word of the new Testament.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Yeah. You're point?***


If the SHEPEHRD OF HERMAS was in the 4th century bibles why is it not in it today.

And why is no one throwing fits about it.