May 2005
Was the Septuagint the Bible of
Christ and the Apostles?
By Dr. Phil Stringer
President Landmark
Baptist College
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Conventional
wisdom
(politically
correct theology and church history)
states that Christ and the apostles
routinely used the Septuagint (a Greek
translation of the Old Testament done
about 200 B.C.) as their daily Bible
and quoted from it often in the New
Testament.
Upon what is this statement
based? Does Christ or the apostles ever
say that they are quoting the
Septuagint? The answer is clearly NO!
Yet it is not hard to see that the
"conventional wisdom" is dogmatic that Christ and the apostles were using
the Greek translation.
Take for example this quote,
"Christ used the Septuagint frequently
in His quotations and references to the
Old Testament. The
use
of
the
Septuagint was widespread in Christ's
day!" The book The Savior and the
Scriptures, the Smith's Bible
Dictionary,
the
International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, along
with many
statements.
others
make
similar
WHY ARE SO MANY
"SCHOLARS" SO DEVOTED
TO THE SEPTUAGINT?
THE APOCRYPHA
Roman Catholics and liberals use
this idea to help support many
unbiblical beliefs.
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
Apocrypha." 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. Many Reformers
and Lutherans wrote at great length
refuting the validity of the Septuagint.
One Catholic lesson posted on the
Internet states: "Me, I will trust the
version of the Old Testament that was
loved by Peter and Paul." This is in a
lesson entitled "The Canon of the Bible
and the Septuagint." The only reason
given for accepting the Apocrypha is
that Christ and the apostles quoted the
Septuagint. One quote reads, "Let me
reiterate: the then 300+ year old
Septuagint version of Scripture was
good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John and Paul, etc, which is evident in
their referencing it over 300 times (out
of 360 Old Testament references) in
their New Testament writings - and the
Septuagint includes seven books and
parts of Esther and Daniel that were
removed from Protestant Bibles some
1,600 years after the birth of Christ."
Almost every "fact" given in the
statement is incorrect but it illustrates
why Roman Catholicism is so devoted
to the Septuagint.
THE BIBLE IN MY OWN
WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose
translation of the Old Testament. It has
much more in common with the
"Revised Standard Version" or even
"The Living Bible" than the King
James Bible. It is used to teach against
the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is
used to justify "dynamic equivalence"
in translation rather than the formal
literal equivalence method (which is
based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration).
After all, if Christ did not care
about the specific words of Scripture,
why should we? For example, see The
Nature and Authority of the Bible,
by Raymond Abba, p. 106)
If Christ used the Septuagint then
you can put the Bible in your own
words in either a paraphrase or your
own translation. You are now God and
private interpretation is your
May 2005
Page 6
method of rule and your source of
authority.
WHY EVANGELICALS?
It is easy to see why Roman
Catholics and modernists are so
devoted to the idea that Christ used the
Septuagint! But why are so many
evangelicals devoted to an idea for
which they can not offer any proof ?
Many proud evangelicals value the
idea of being accepted as "scholarly"
and "educated" by the world (the
Catholics and the modernists).
They
substitute
conventional
wisdom in place of doing their own
research and getting solid answers.
There is no evidence that the Greek
translation of the Old Testament was
used by Christ and the apostles.
WHAT IS THE SEPTUAGINT?
According to General Biblical
Introduction: From God to Us (by
H.S. Miller, p. 220): "The Septuagint
Version is a translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament into the Greek language
for the Greek speaking Jews of
Alexandria. The abbreviation is LXX."
But why would Christ, when
preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use
a Greek version designed for the Greek
speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt?
The existence of this translation is
based upon a letter called the "Letter of
Aristeas".
Aristeas claims to be a high
official in the court of the Egyptian
King
Ptolemy
Philadelphius.
According to this letter, the royal
librarian suggests that it would be good
to have a Greek Translation of the Old
Testament in the Egyptian
royal library. The king sent Jews living
in Egypt (including Aristeas) to
Jerusalem to ask for help.
They asked the high priest to send
six scribes from each tribe of Israel to
Alexandria in Egypt to make this
Greek translation of the Old Testament.
They were sent to the island of Pharos
where they each did their own
translation of the first five books of the
Old Testament. All 72 translations
were identical (after 72 days of
translation work). This supposedly
proved that the translators were
inspired by God!
Of course, no one today believes
that this story is factually true but still
many base their doctrine of Scripture
upon it. H.S. Miller, (General Biblical
Introduction: From God to Us, p.
222) said that "The Letter to Aristeas"
has been doubted, then denied and that
"now it has few, if any, defenders."
One Bible Only? (Roy Beacham and
Kevin Bauder) calls it "a mixture of
fact and fable" (p.29). Geisler and Nix,
A General Introduction to the Bible
says, "The details of this story are
undoubtedly fictitious but the letter
does relate the authentic fact that the
LXX was translated for the use of
Greek speaking Jews ofAlexandria (p.
308).
But if this story is "fictions" then
there is no "factual" information about
the origin of the Septuagint. There are
no other historical references to the
translation of the Old Testament into
Greek in Alexandria.
The
Introduction
to
the
Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of
Origen's Septuagint) states that the
"Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of
notice except for the myth being
connected with the authority which this
version (LXX) was once supposed to
have possessed."
It also says (p-i), "No information,
whatever, as to the time and place of
their execution (ancient versions), or
by whom they were made exists, we
simply find such versions in use at
particular times..."
The New Schaff
- Herzog
Religious Encyclopedia admits: "Of
the pre-Christian period of its history
(referring to the Septuagint) next to
nothing is known." (Volume II, p.117)
There are no historical references to the
Septuagint before the time of Christ
except for the "Letter of Aristeas."
Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus and all of
the early Christian writers refer to the
same story. A story that no one today
believes!
For some reason the work of the
Seventy- two began to be commonly
referred to as the LXX or the Seventy.
There is no clear explanation for why it
is called "the Seventy" instead of "the
Seventy-two." The lack of a clear
explanation is not unusual in this story.
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS
Supporters of the "Christ used the
Septuagint" theory often refer to early
Christian writers (such as Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of
Jerusalem and Augustine) as proof that
Christ and the apostles used the
Septuagint. The writers quoted can all
be found in either the Ante-Nicene or
Post-Nicene Fathers.
Everyone of these men based their
acceptance of the LXX on the bogus
"Letter of Aristeas."
The early Christian writers do not
add any other information about Christ
using the Septuagint.
If you
do not believe the legendary story of
"The Letter of Aristeas" then these
writers do not add anything to the
discussion.
Jerome was a contemporary of
Page 7
May 2005
Augustine. Jerome wanted to see a new
translation of the Old Testament into
Latin from the Hebrew. Augustine
opposed the use of the Hebrew because
he thought the Greek Septuagint was
"inspired."
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.
It is clear that what is called the
Septuagint today has nothing to do
with the story of "The Letter to
Aristeas." What is called the
Septuagint today is the work of Origen
(almost 200 years after the time of
Christ).
Advocates of the "Christ used the
Septuagint" view are quick to pass off
statements like the one above as "King
James propaganda." One writer said:
"So, why is the King James only
advocate so desperate to put the
completion of the Septuagint after the
writing of the New Testament
Scriptures? It is because the Septuagint
is not identical to the Hebrew
Scriptures from which the King James
was translated, yet Christ and the
apostles often quoted it." This attack
on the advocates of the King James
Bible ignored the testimony of Jerome
from the fourth century. The
recognition of the history of the
Septuagint is not new.
In 1588 (23 years before the
release of the King James Bible)
William Whitaker wrote: "Learned
men question, whether the Greek
version of the Scriptures now extant
be or be not the version of the seventy
elders. The sounder opinion seems to
be that of those who determine that the
true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that
the Greek text as we have it, is a mixed
and miserably corrupted document.
Aristeas says that the Septuagint
version was exactly conformable to the
Hebrew originals, so that when read
and diligently examined by skillful
judges, it was highly approved by the
general suffrage of them all. But this of
ours differs amazingly from the
Hebrew, as well in other places and
books, as specially in the Psalms of
David."
(William
Whitaker,
Disputations on Holy Scripture, 1588,
p. 121; Soli Deo Gloria edition 2000)
Whitaker was the foremost
defender of the Protestant doctrine of
Scripture against Catholicism in his
day. He also wrote:
"From these and innumerable
examples of the like sort we may
concede either this Greek version
which has come down to our times is
not the same as that published by the
seventy Jewish elders, or that it has
suffered such infinite and shameful
corruptions as to be now of very slight
authority. Even Jerome had not the
Greek translation of the seventy
interpreters in its purity; since he often
complains in his commentary that what
he had was faulty and corrupt."
(Disputations on Holy Scripture, p.
122)
This is not "King James Only"
propaganda. It is a sound review of
history.
In Ira Price's, The Ancestry of Our
English Bible, he mentions several
important
manuscripts
of
the
Septuagint, p. 52-80. Everyone (except
the John Rylands fragment) is the
Origen version of the Septuagint produced long after the New
Testament. Every manuscript was
produced at least two hundred years
after the New Testament that "scholars"
claim that it quotes. "But the earliest
extent manuscript of this version (the
Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..."
(H. S. Miller, General Biblical
Introduction, p. 120)
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
"Scholars" are fond of saying that
the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the
Septuagint. In fact the phrase "the Dead
Sea Scrolls proves" is used to justify
any number of ideas that have nothing
to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In fact, there is not one single
verse of the Old Testament in Greek in
any manuscript found in the Dead Sea
Scrolls. There is nothing about the
Septuagint in these scrolls. There are
no quotes from the Septuagint or
references to it. None of the Dead Sea
Scrolls mention anything about the
Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls
are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Some of the Old Testament books
found among the Dead Sea Scrolls
don't match the Hebrew of the
traditional text. Some scholars call
these Hebrew manuscripts "the Qumran
Septuagint." They suggest that these
manuscripts were the Septuagint
translated back into Hebrew. There is
no reference to this in any of the scrolls
or anywhere else in history. So why do
they believe this? Because they really
wish it was true. There is no Qumran
Septuagint!
The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove
that the "sacred language" (the
language used in sermons, rituals and
commentaries) of the Jews in Palestine
around the time of Christ was Hebrew
–
not
Greek.
May 2005
Page 4
GREEK SCRAPS
One of the most common
suggested evidences for a Septuagint
translation before the time of Christ is
the existence of four manuscript scraps
which
contain
verses
from
Deuteronomy. These manuscript scraps
actually date from before the time of
Christ and they are the only
manuscripts in Greek of any part of the
Old Testament ever found that date
before the time of Christ.
The first three manuscript scraps
(Rylands Papyrus 458) were found
together and contain Deut. 23, 25:13,
26:12, 17, 19 and 28:31-33. A fourth
scrap found in Fouad, Egypt repeats
some of these verses and adds Deut.
32:7.
No New Testament writer quotes
any of these verses and they prove
nothing about what Bible Christ and the
apostles used.
These are the only manuscripts of a
Greek Old Testament from before the
time of Christ. All they prove is that
someone had translated part of
Deuteronomy into Greek before 150
B.C. Since they are never quoted they
don't prove who used this translation or
how widespread it was.
THE WORK OF PROFESSOR
KAHLE
Professor Paul Kahle (1875-1964)
challenged the conventional wisdom of
the Septuagint theory. He was not a
King James Only advocate. He was a
German professor of Oriental Studies.
He was a recognized scholar of
Mideastern languages.
Professor Kahle simply refused to
accept the legend of "The Letter of
Aristeas." He called it "propaganda."
He refused to follow the conventional
wisdom that treats "The Letter of
Aristeas" as fictional but authoritative
history at the same time.
Kahle's theory states that what we
call the Septuagint today is actually the
result of an attempt to standardize a
Greek translation of the Old Testament.
This took place over 150 years after the
time of Christ and the apostles. He
believed that various scraps of
manuscripts and attempts at translations
may have been consulted. He found
some evidence for a Greek translation
of the first five books of the Old
Testament before the time of Christ but
he did not believe that this translation
had anything to do with the legend of
"The Letter to Aristeas." (See The
Romance of Bible Scripts and
Scholars, Prentice Hall, 1965, p. 16)
He clearly did not believe that
there was any one proto-type for the
Septuagint of Origen.
He saw no
reason to believe that Christ or the
apostles quoted the Septuagint (which
was not produced until at least 150
years later).
Most "Septuagint scholars" reject
the Kahle theory. It does not fit with
their pre-conceived notions about the
Septuagint or with their theological
needs. They simply "dismiss it" but they
can't refute it.
Fredrick Kenyon writes, "It must
be admitted that Kahle makes a strong
case." Dr. Kahle's theory fits with the
record of Jerome.
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN
GREEK -WHAT REALLY
HAPPENED
Jewish people spread throughout
the Greek kingdoms of the Mideast. As
the Roman empire spread through the
Mideast, the Jewish dispersion
increased.
Some Jews, known as Grecians or
Hellenists, adopted the Greek life style
as did much of the Roman
Empire. Some of these Jews began to
use Greek as their main language. They
were represented in religious circles by
the Sadducees.
Some entire Jewish communities
began to adopt the Greek language,
including the large Jewish community in
Alexandria, Egypt. Some historians have
estimated that one third of Alexandria
was Jewish.
Many supporters of the "Christ used
the Septuagint theory" teach that all the
Jews used Greek as their main language
and as their sacred language. This, they
say, is why Christ and the apostles used
a Greek Old Testament. This statement
is absolutely against all the historical
evidences. Outside Alexandria and a few
other distant cities, the number of Jews
who used Greek as their main language
was very small.
The main language of the Jewish
people was Aramaic. This language is
related to Old Testament Hebrew.
According to the unanimous testimony
of the Jewish Mesneh and the Jewish
Targums,
the
language
of
the
synagogues and the rabbis of Palestine
was Aramaic. No Greek Old Testament
could ever have gained any acceptance
among the Jews of Palestine.
There was an Aramaic translation
of the Old Testament in common use
among the Jewish people. It was called
the Targum of Onkelos. It was printed in
1517 by Cardinal Ximenes. Only in the
far regions of the dispersion was there a
demand for a Greek Old Testament.
There were probably several attempts to
translate parts of the Old Testament in
Greek. According to "The Letter of
Aristeas," Philo, Josephus and a writer
named Aristobulous, a Greek version of
the first five books of the Old Testament
was
translated
in
Alexandra.
Page 5
May 2005
Alexandria was one of the few
places where a demand for a Greek
Old Testament might have taken
place. These authors clearly
maintain that this version closely
matched the Hebrew of the first
five books of the Bible. The
translation currently known as the
Septuagint does not match the
Hebrew closely at all.
The scraps of the John Rylands
manuscript apparently come from a
pre-Christian era translation of
Deuteronomy.
Someone invented the legend
of the 72 elders in order to give
credibility to a Greek translation,
possibly one from Alexandria.
Philo (who some believe invented
the legend) and Josephus promoted
this legend. Eventually someone
expanded the story to refer to the
whole Old Testament. Whenever
someone used a Greek translation
of part of the Old Testament, they
called it the Septuagint to try and
connect it to the legend of the
"inspired" Alexandrian translation.
Some early Christian leaders
fell for this myth.
Greek
translations of the whole Old
Testament began to appear in the
Mideast. Around 140 A.D., a Greek
translation was produced by Aquila.
According to Jerome, he studied
under the famed Rabbi Akiba from
A.D. 95 until A.D. 135. This
translation, made after the New
Testament, purposely obscures the
Old Testament prophecies about
Christ that are fulfilled in the New
Testament. Because of this, it found
some acceptance among the Jews.
Of course, it did not contain the
Apocrypha - if it had it would never
have been accepted by the Jews.
Some writers have called Aquila's
translation "the Septuagint" or "a
Septuagint." There are no existing
copies of this text.
Theodotian (around 180 A.D.)
presented a Greek translation of the
Old Testament. He was an
"Ebionite" Christian - a heretical sect
that denied the deity of Christ.
Theodotian claimed to be
correcting the original Septuagint.
(How do you correct an inspired
translation?) He also obscures many
Old Testament prophecies about
Christ. Since he was writing for a
heretical Christian audience and not
a Jewish one, he included some of
the Apocrypha. His work was also
called "a Septuagint" or "the
Septuagint."
A third translator, Symmachus,
was also an Ebionite. He produced a
Greek translation around 211 A.D.
He did not include any of the
Apochrypha. His work was also
called "a Septuagint" or "the
Septuagint."
Origen worked on "restoring"
the Septuagint between 220-240
A.D. He claimed that there were as
many different Greek translations as
there were manuscripts. As he
worked on his restoration, he had the
translations of Aquila, Theodotian
and Symmachus in front of him. He
also claimed to have two other Greek
manuscripts that he found in a jar
and at least two "corrupted" copies
of the true Septuagint.
Of course, Origen had the New
Testament. He wrote commentaries
on every book of the New
Testament. He collated these Greek
manuscripts and created his own
version of the Septuagint. As the
International
Encyclopedia
Standard
Bible
declares. "It was
Origen who claimed to be able to
give the church the true text of the
Old Testament and its true
meaning." (ISBE, p. 2276)
Origen clearly believed that the
Old Testament prophecies referred to
Christ. He worked hard at making the
Old Testament match the New
Testament - even when it didn't.
His Septuagint is what people
call the Septuagint today. There is no
copy of a Septuagint from Alexandria
to compare with his copy. There is no
way to know how much of Origen's
Septuagint he simply invented.
Some writers have said that to
declare Origen's Septuagint to be the
document called the Septuagint today
is simply "King James propaganda."
"Scholars" like Ira Price, H.S. Miller,
Frederick Kenyon and Gleason
Archer are clearly not "King James
fanatics." They all recognize that the
current
document
called
the
Septuagint is the work of Origen.
This is simply history. The New
Schaff
-
Herzog
Encyclopedia
refers to Origen's Septuagint as "the
so called Septuagint." (vol. II, p. 116)
The Encyclopedia Britannica,
(vol. 5, p. 63) states that the text of
the Septuagint is, "contained in a few
early, but not necessarily reliable,
manuscripts. The best known of these
are the Codex Vaticanus and the
Codex Sinacticus both dating from
the 4th century and the Codex
Alexandrinus from the 5th century."
All of these early texts are Origen's
Septuagint.
Smith's
Bible
Dictionary
(p.
432) states about the Septuagint,
"moreover it has come down to us in
a state of great corruption, which
renders it difficult to ascertain what
the first translators wrote."
In the fourth century, Jerome
complained that the only editions of
the Septuagint available were those
of Origen's redaction of the
Septuagint. He also claimed that Ori
gen "borrowed" things to place in his
Old Testament.
When writers like Irenaeus and
Page 6
May 2005
Justin Martyr (who wrote before
Origen) refer to the Septuagint, we
have no idea what Greek version
they were referring to. It doesn't
exist today.
Origen's Septuagint was made
popular by Eusebius. As a result...
"evidence of Septuagint readings
prior to the time of Origen have been
confused or lost." (Ira Price, The
Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 79)
added that are not found in the
Hebrew Scriptures (thus their claims
against verbal inspiration). Origen
may have been comfortable violating
Proverbs 30:5-6 but Christ wouldn't
have been.
If he had violated Proverbs 30:56, the Pharisees would have been
very quick to condemn him for this.
READING IN THE SYNAGOGUE
When "scholars" discuss the
Septuagint today they discuss a
translation produced after the New
Testament by a famous commentator
on the New Testament.
Jesus frequently read the
Scriptures and preached from them
in the Jewish Synagogues (see Luke
4 for example). Hebrew was the
language of the Synagogue and
THE EVIDENCE THAT CHRIST Christ was clearly using a Hebrew
Bible when preaching there. No copy
DID NOT USE ANY VERSION
of any Greek Old Testament has ever
OF THE SEPTUAGINT
been found in a Jewish Synagogue.
LAw, PROPHETS AND PSALMS
Christ continually refers to the
Hebrew division of the Old
Testament - The Law, Prophets and
Psalms (see Matt. 7:12, 11:13,
22:40; and Luke 24:27, 44 for
example). No known version of the
Septuagint has any such division.
Origen's Septuagint has the Old
Testament in an entirely different
order with the books of the
Apocrypha interspersed among them.
Christ took it for granted that His
hearers used an Old Testament with
the historic 3 - fold division found in
the Hebrew Bible.
PROVERBS 30:5-6
The testimony of Proverbs 30:56
is clear. Every word of God is pure;
he is a shield unto them that put their
trust in him. Add thou not unto his
words, lest he reprove thee, and thou
be found a liar Proverbs 3:5-6 clearly
condemns adding or subtracting
from the words of the Hebrew
Scriptures. Even the strongest
defenders of the Septuagint admit
that many words are
THE COMMON PEOPLE HEARD
HIM GLADLY
Jesus' public preaching and
teaching drew great crowds of the
common people. If he had preached
in Greek he could never have drawn
such an audience. Many Jewish
people learned Greek for use in trade
and dealing with the Roman Empire
but they never accepted it for
communication among themselves or
in sacred matters.
The Hellenists (Grecians) who
favored Greek were a small group
often distant from the majority of the
people. If Jesus had preached in
Greek both the Pharisees and the
Zealots would have used that against
Him and the crowds would never
have
flocked
to
Him.
He
undoubtedly preached in Aramaic
(the daily language of the Jews closely related to Hebrew) and read
the Scriptures from Hebrew. The
Synagogues of Palestine refused to
use the Greek and considered the
Hebrew sacred (see
H.S. Miller, General Biblical
Introduction, p. 224). The Hebrew
Misneh makes it clear that this was
expected from all Jewish teachers.
IS DISOBEDIENCE THE WAY TO GET
AN HONORABLE TRANSLATION OF
THE SCRIPTURE?
If the story told in "The Letter of
Aristeas" had any truth in it at all, it
would
involve
activities
in
disobedience to Scripture. The
Scripture was clear that the holy
writings were to be handled only by
Levites-Dent. 17:18, 31:25-26. The
scribes involved in the Aristea's story
would be acting in disobedience to
Scripture.
Furthermore God had told the
Israelites to stay out of Egypt - see
Jeremiah 42:13-22 and 44:25-26. He
condemned all those who returned to
Egypt and promised to judge them.
Would Christ have put His stamp of
approval on such disobedience?
THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE
APOCRYPHA
The translation currently known
as
the
Septuagint
(Origen's
Septuagint) contains the books of the
Apocrypha.
No Hebrew Bible ever contained
the books of the Apocrypha. No
Jewish council ever endorsed these
books and at least one Jewish council
specifically rejected them (Council of
Jamnia A.D. 90).
One of the main reasons for
rejecting them is because they were
written in Greek. They did not
believe that any sacred writings
could ever be in Greek. Jewish
leaders would also use this same
argument against the books of the
New Testament.
It is unthinkable to believe that
the Jews in Palestine used a Greek
Old
May 2005
Testament containing the rejected
books of the Apocrypha.
WHY DON'T NEW
TESTAMENT REFERENCES
MATCH THE OLD
TESTAMENT WORD FOR
WORD?
"Well they had to be quoting
something - it must be the Septuagint."
This is the argument of advocates of
the "Christ used the Septuagint
theory." So what were the New
Testament writers and Christ quoting?
There are 268 references to "as it is
written" in the New Testament. Few
match the exact wording of the Hebrew
Old Testament passages they refer to.
Eighty-eight match (or are matched by)
Origen's Septuagint. Most of the other
180 don't match any ancient document
word for word.
Some have suggested that perhaps
an Aramaic translation of the Old
Testament or a Chaldean paraphrase
are being quoted but this is unlikely.
Actually the explanation is simple and
has been known for a long time. The
Greek phrase "as it is written" is a
common one in ancient Greek writings.
It is never an indication of an exact
quote - in the New Testament or
anywhere else. Frederick Spitta wrote a
century ago, "According to the
unvarying practice in the New
Testament, the citation formula "as it is
written" is never the introductory
clause but rather always follows a
report of something seen as the
fulfillment of a prophetic word." The
phrase implies not a quotation but a
reference to a fulfillment of a
prediction or a prophecy. For example,
see the way the phrase, "as it is
written," is used in the writings of
Justin Martyr.
These passages are simply not
quotes at all - they are allusions to Old
Testament prophecies. These are Holy
Page 7
Spirit inspired allusions they are not quotations at all. This was
clear to the Reformed theologians and
many of the old Church of England
writers. A little bit of research gives a
clear explanation. The critics of the
King James position would be well
served to read more widely.
ORIGEN' S SEPTUAGINT
COPIES THE NEW
TESTAMENT
Many more examples could be
shown. Origen's Septuagint adds nine
names to Genesis 46:20 to make it add
up to the 75 mentioned in Acts 7:14.
Origen's Septuagint often changes the
Old Testament to match the New
Testament. For instance the Old
Testament Hebrew is ignored and the
Greek Old Testament is made to match
the Greek New Testament.
Philo, Aristeas and Josephus refer
to a Greek Old Testament that matches
the Hebrew Old Testament. Origen
provides a Greek Old Testament
"coordinated" in many places with the
New Testament.
This should not come as a
surprise. Origen produced his Greek
Old Testament 150 years after the last
book of the New Testament was given.
As a noted commentator on all of the
books of the New Testament, he was
very familiar with the New Testament.
It is not a surprise that 88 Old
Testament allusions in the New
Testament match Ori eng 's Septuagint.
The New Testament came first.
WHAT ABOUT THE KING
JAMES TRANSLATORS?
Advocates of the "Christ used the
Septuagint" theory are quick to refer
to the fact that some of the King James
Bible translators believed this theory.
This is true.
However, no one suggests that the
King James translators were infallible
in their understanding of church
history. If they had been, they would
have left the Church of England and
joined the Baptist churches of their
time.
It is interesting that many who
believe that the King James translators
can be corrected by every college
student with two years of Greek,
suddenly find them authoritative when
they speak about church history. Their
expertise was in the Greek, Hebrew and
Latin languages, not in church history.
CONCLUSION
According to Dewey Beagle, only
in recent years (he was writing in
1960) have "scholars" begun to value
the Septuagint again. (God's Word
Into English, p. 44) Could it be that
the Biblical and textual "scholars" from
the 1500's to the 1900's were right after
all?
The
Scripture
offers
many
warnings about being careful what we
believe.
Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ. Colossians 2:8