Posted by Clark Bates
January 14, 2019
There’s a troubling resurgence, within the Christian faith, of a group known as the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (NIFB). The original IFB were prevalent in the American South, especially in Florida, for a large portion of the 1980’s and 90’s. I was raised in Florida at this time and my family were founding members of an IFB church. The NIFB is a movement, from the same regions, of younger pastors seeking to revive the teachings of the IFB church through social media, films, and heated, vitriolic attacks on those who disagree.
For some background, a cardinal tenet of the NIFB is that the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired Word of God. Understand what I am saying, they don’t believe that the KJV is the best English translation. They believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. What this means is that if a Greek text disagrees with the KJV, it should be changed to match the English. It also means that any reference in the Bible to the Word of God, is a reference to the KJV. I spent more than a decade in this movement and can honestly say that it is a cult. A second characteristic of the NIFB is the rejection of repentance from sin. This is a bit odd of a position, but the NIFB believes that salvation does not involve repentance, because the believer is forgiven and need not repent.
While I have considered addressing several of their positions recently, one that I had not been aware of growing up, but was faced with recently, actually caught me off guard and is what I’m writing about today. The claim is that the Greek Old Testament, often called the Septuagint, or LXX, is fake. Here are some quotes from IFB websites:
“The Greek Septuagint -- some Christians swear by it, and other Christians have never heard of it. It is common for the new-age bible version defenders to call upon the Greek Septuagint in their time of weakness, but as we will demonstrate in this article, the Greek Septuagint never existed.” (bold type theirs)
“it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud”
“So, the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.”
In my time with the IFB I don’t recall having heard this, but I was young and may not have paid that close attention. Most of the arguments provided by the NIFB emphasize ad hominem attacks and accusations of Roman Catholicism, New Age Paganism, and the like. For now, let me just address, three points often used as support by the NIFB as a reason to reject the LXX:
- The Letter of Aristeas
- No manuscript evidence for the LXX before the time of Christ
- No evidence that Jesus or the apostles used it
The Letter of Aristeas
Many who read this have probably heard of the LXX but don’t really know the history of it, so it is best to give you the background before addressing the Letter. The first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek is believed to have taken place under the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC). While it is commonly called the Septuagint as if it were a single document, the Greek Old Testament is actually a compilation of various Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, made over many centuries. The first books to be translated under the Ptolemian dynasty were the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible. By the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD most of the entire Hebrew Bible was likely translated into Greek.
There are several theories as to why the translation occurred but an historical reality is that the Jewish people were living in an increasingly Hellenized world. Greek was the language of the day, and even in Palestine, many Jews would need to understand Greek in order to do business. The need for a Greek language Bible would become an ever-increasing necessity in this environment. Additionally, a Greek Bible would make it more accessible to non-Jewish converts to Judaism. People whom the NT describes as “God-fearers” (i.e. Cornelius in Acts 10:1) would not know Hebrew, and the Hebrew people were viewed suspiciously by the Romans for their unwillingness to sacrifice to the pagan gods, therefore, a Greek translation of the Scriptures would assist in revealing God’s message to the Romans.
The name “Septuagint” is Latin for “the seventy” and this is why it is often abbreviated with the Roman Numerals LXX (70). The origin of this work comes from the pseudo-historic Letter of Aristeas. The letter is clearly a work of archaism, seeking to promote the Jewish culture and beliefs. While many scholars reference it as a historical resource to the origin of the LXX, it is widely understood to contain imaginary, non-historic elements. However, a document need not be entirely true to contain elements of truth. In it we read that,
“Demetrius of Phalerum, the president of the king's library, received vast sums of money, for the purpose of collecting together, as far as he possibly could, all the books in the world. By means of purchase and transcription, he carried out, to the best of his ability, the purpose of the king.” (Aristeas 9)
The king in question would be Ptolemy, however, the president, Demetrius of Phalerum, was banished by Ptolemy at the assumption of his throne so it is unlikely that this Demetrius was involved. That being said, it is still believed that Ptolemy did seek to have books copied and transcribed, including the Hebrew Bible. A letter from Ptolemy to the high priest Elazar is recorded in Aristeas, saying,
“Now since I am anxious to show my gratitude to these men and to the Jews throughout the world and to the generations yet to come, I have determined that your law shall be translated from the Hebrew tongue which is in use amongst you into the Greek language, that these books may be added to the other royal books in my library. It will be a kindness on your part and a regard for my zeal if you will select six elders from each of your tribes, men of noble life and skilled in your law and able to interpret it, that in questions of dispute we may be able to discover the verdict in which the majority agree, for the investigation is of the highest possible importance.” (Aristeas, 38-39)
“He [Ptolemy II], then, being a sovereign of this character, and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person.” (Moses,2.31)
And according to Josephus,
“I found therefore that the second of the Ptolemies, was a King who was extraordinary diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue.” (Josephus Preface to Antiquities 3)
While the accounts tend toward the miraculous, the lowest common historical denominator is that multiple lines of historical evidence point to a Greek translation of the Torah being commissioned by Ptolemy II during his reign.
This directly contradicts statements of the NIFB that, “it should be emphasized that the "Letter of Aristeas," is the ONLY evidence for the existence of the Septuagint.” This is not the case, but in an effort to avoid these other accounts, Philo is dismissed as a “mystic” and Josephus is said to be a poor historian since his accounts of the Jewish people in Antiquities do not match the Old Testament in every detail. Two short responses to these points: Calling Philo a “mystic” is not a refutation of his ability to record history, neither was Josephus seeking to re-write the OT in the Antiquities but provide a summarized history of his people, therefore his accounts will not match. And as a footnote, the existence of miraculous claims does not detract from the core historical element of the story, therefore when the three lines of historical evidence are examined, they agree on that fundamental detail, which should be acknowledged.
The Manuscript Evidence
The claim made on one NIFB website is this,
“In fact, the ONLY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament from before the time of Christ in existence today is Ryland's Papyrus #458, which contains only 6 chapters of Deuteronomy. That's it.” (italics original)
Without seeking to be to brusque, this statement is simply false. Here is a list of papyri fragments prior to the time of Christ and their contents supporting the LXX:
| 2nd BC | |||
| Dt 11.4 | 4QLXXDeut = 4Q122 ("leather" roll) [E. Ulrich, Studies J.W. Wevers (1984), p.71-82 = Disc. Jud. Desert 09 122] | 2bce | [#819] LDAB 3458 [K. Treu, Archiv 31 (1985), p.59 no.55b] |
| Dt 23-28 | PRyl 458 (roll)(sp, high dot) [C.H.Roberts, Bull. J.Rylands Library 20 (1936), pp.219-245] | 2bce | [#957] vh057 t039 LDAB 3459 |
| 2nd/1st BC | |||
| Ex 28 | 7QLXXEx (roll) [check dating; LDAB 000 (confused?)] | 2/1bce | [#805] vh038 LDAB 3456 AlandAT18 |
| Lev 26 | 4QLXXLev\a ("leather" roll)(blanks) [check dating; LDAB 000] | 2/1bce | [#801] vh049 LDAB 3454 |
| EpJer/Bar6 | 7QLXX EpJer (roll) | 2/1bce | [#804] vh312 LDAB 3460 AlandAT144 |
| 1st BC | |||
| Gen 3-38 | PFouad 266a (roll)(sp, blanks) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980] | 1bce | [#942] vh056a LDAB 3450 AlandAT3 [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91 no.5a] |
| Lev 2-5 | 4QLXXLev\b Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum (roll)(sp, blanks, paragr, IAW) | 1bce | [#802] vh046 LDAB 3452 AlandAT22 |
| Dt 17-33 | PFouad 266b (roll)(sp, blanks, paragr, Heb tetragr, stichometric in 32) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980] | 1bce | [#848] vh056b t037A LDAB 3451 Aland01 = AT27 [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91] |
| late 1st BC | |||
| Dt 10-33 | PFouad 266c (roll)(sp) [Zaki Aly - L. Koenen, Three rolls of the Early Septuagint, 1980] | 1+bce | [#847] vh056c LDAB 3453 Aland01; [K. Treu, Archiv 28 (1982), p.91 no.55a] |
| 4Q127 (Greek paraphrase of Exod?) | 1+bce | ||
| 4Q126 (unidentified Greek, skins) | 1+bce | ||
| turn of era | |||
| Nm 3-4 | 4QLXXNu ("leather" roll)(sp) | 000 | [#803] vh051 t036A LDAB 3455 |
| MPrs-A | Nahal Hever hand A ("leather" roll[s], two hands, A and B)(sp, blanks, paragr, ekthesis, paleo tetra) [D. Barthe/lemy. Les devanciers d'Aquila (1963); B. Lifshitz, Isr. Explor. Journ. 12 (1962), p.201-207; E.Tov, R.Kraft, P.Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, Disc. Jud. Desert 08] [Parsons 1+bce?] | 000 | [#943a] vh285 LDAB 3457 |
| MPrs-B | Nahal Hever hand B ("leather" roll[s], two hands, A and B)(sp, blanks, paragr, ekthesis, paleo tetra) [see above] | 000 | [#943b] vh285 LDAB 3457 |
| 1st BC | |||
| Job 42 | POxy 3522 (roll, paleo tetragr, sp) | ||
*MPrs means the Minor Prophets
It cannot be overstated that simply because these are the fragments and scrolls remaining, this does not mean that theses were the only books copied. It is not uncommon for members of the IFB/NIFB to ignore historical evidence that can’t be manipulated in their favor. This is another important trait to keep in mind when facing the claims made by the group. The manuscript evidence alone is devastating to the NIFB position, that the LXX was created after the 2nd century AD.
Jesus and the Apostles
“Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
‘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.’ (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) ‘The Law and the Prophets’ and (2) ‘The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’:
‘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.’ Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!”
You’ll notice right away that no attempt is made to actually address the use of the OT by Jesus or the apostles, merely an attempt to avoid the issue by suggesting that when Jesus spoke about the OT, he used Hebrew terminology. Of course, Jesus used Hebrew terminology! He was a Hebrew! He was speaking to Hebrews! Most likely in Hebrew (or Aramaic)! The existence of a Greek OT does not preclude the use of the Hebrew nor does it mean that all references to the Hebrew Bible would cease. Arguments like the one made above do not address the issue, they merely avoid it.
There are numerous places where the NT citation of the OT do not match the Hebrew, I will only list four for the sake of brevity:
1. Ps. 40:6: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.” (Hebrew)
Ps. 40:6: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.” (LXX)
The LXX translation is considerably different than the Hebrew, and it is the LXX that is quoted in Hebrews 10:5
2. Is. 29:13: "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Hebrew)
Is. 29:13: "And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." (LXX)
In Mark 7:6-7 Jesus states that he is quoting the prophet Isaiah and reads the above verse from the LXX.
3. Is. 28:13: "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." (Hebrew)
Is. 28:13: "Therefore thus saith the Lord, [even] the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious [stone], for its foundations; and he that believes [on him] shall by no means be ashamed." (LXX)
Both the apostle Paul in Rom.9:33 and 10:11, and the apostle Peter in 1 Pet.2:6 quote teh LXX version of this passage.
4. Gen. 47:31: “Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of his bed.” (Hebrew)
Gen. 47:31: “Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of his staff.” (LXX)
This is the text quoted in Hebrews 11:21.
The simple fact is that the overwhelming evidence from the words of Jesus and the apostles is that the LXX existed and was used in the 1st century AD. The only way around this issue is to suggest that the OT citations were somehow changed before the oldest manuscript copies that we currently possess were made. However, the only way to make this claim is to call into question the entire reliability of the Bible, something NIFB proponents will not do.
Conclusion
Certainly, the differences in translation between the Hebrew and the Greek OT bring up theological questions. Some of which I have addressed here. But the answer to these questions is not to develop an elaborate conspiratorial house of cards. Such an approach only guarantees the damage of believer’s faith when they see the evidence for themselves. In reality, the existence of the LXX is one of the most important literary finds in Christian and Jewish antiquity, as it opens our eyes to the world of Hellenistic Judaism and the early church. It did exist, and it is not a threat
No comments:
Post a Comment