Doubts about the Septuagint

[Lees]

So you claim.

Nothing. It's just a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Even some of the NT authors quoted from it.

Who knows...who cares?

You have no demonstrated it is founded on a lie committed by 72 translators.....Just claims.

Who cares?...you ask. Where is the Septuagint? You say some New Testament writers quoted from it. What did they quote from? Where is the Septuagint that was supposedly quoted from?

What Greek translation did they quote from?

The 'letter of Aristeas' is just a claim.

Aristeas claims to be a Greek court official during King Ptolemy's reign. Nothing supports this. It claims that Aristeas was sent by the King to find translators to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. Again, nothing supports this.

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, we have copies in the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic Text. No Greek translation of the Hebrew is superior to the Hebrew.

The original language will always be better than the foreign language it's being translated into.

As to the "letter" I see no reason to even include it in the conversation concerning the LXX.

 

[Hazelelponi]

But what makes these Greek translations the supposed 'Septuagint'.

And, why do you not include the Codex Sinaiticuas? These three are usually referenced together.

Yes, we have copies in the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic Text. No Greek translation of the Hebrew is superior to the Hebrew.

Lees

A lie is an untruth with an intent to deceive.

Septuagint actually kind of rolls off the tongue quite naturally don't you think? I'm fairly certain that might be ruined by a two.

I think God probably knows human nature better than we do and might be a lovely advertiser - who knows?

So the Septuagint is sold as having 70 scholars so you buy the book and guess what? Way more than you bargained for because not only was the book translated by 70 scholars, but 2 angels contributed also unawares...

Now that was a bargain, and a cool selling point.

We can do anything when we create motives out of thin air... It's better to instead to take things at face value with humility and faith in God - and that is hard sometimes, we are just people - and learn from the best scholars why we use this text, and why it's important.

I would think this is Biblical advice to give a person. In the information age, I rather doubt there's any excuse for not knowing a thing. When the world is at our fingertips we may as well put learning to good use.

 

[Arial]

I am saying if you trust the Septuagint, then you are using an unreliable source. It doesn't mean God does not protect His Word. Did God not protect His Word when the Serpent said, 'yea hath God said'? You act as if just because Christianity embraces the Septuagint, then it must be God's Word.

Well, the 'letter of Aristeas' is your starting point. It is the only proof of any Septuagint. Until you can address that lie, further information is irrelevant.

Lees

Which is it. God protects his word. Or our Bibles that contain his word are unreliable.

You place too much emphasis on a letter you say is a fraud. What is a fraudulent about the letter? The content of the letter? What does that have to do with whether or not the Septuagint is reliable or not. In your assertion that the KJV is the only reliable source (if that is what you are doing, you have not said) Tyndale translated that into English from the Hebrew that was available. Our English Bibles have come from his translations. They have been adjusted over the years as more documents are found and to make the reading of them more clear to the modern reader. Even the scribal errors that are found and rectified as more documents came available, do it change any of the truths. They are minor.

What is needed since the entire focus to support your claim of unreliability is based on a single letter being a fraud, you need to change that focus to the science and art of textual criticism.

There are better and more detailed accounts of this, including the Septuagint than the link I provide, but it will maybe be enough to set you on the right track. Instead of declaring to the Christians on the forum and possible brand new Christian lurking, that our Bible is unreliable.

blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm
The best I have found so far is actually contained in my Reformation Bible. An article by T. Desmond Alexander and The Bible in Church History by Stephen J. Nichols. I tried to find them online but could not.

What we have in our Bibles, including the Septuagint as the OT translated to Greek, is the result of an unimaginable difficult and intense task of textual analysis. Not just taking things for granted.

 

[Mr GLee]

I have heard the Kings James a better translation 60 men from different walks of life. All of the Translators were university graduates diversity

There is no perfect one other than the original inspired.

Many mistranslations today most likely that change the original intended meaning of a word. Two or three that standout that I know of and violate the warning not to add or subtract new meaning to even one word it can change the authority of many loving commandments.

You could say spiritual plagiarism violating the first loving commandment have no other gods before him

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word (singular)which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,(singular) that ye may keep the commandments(plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.

God protecting the integrity of the living word

 

[Lees]

The original language will always be better than the foreign language it's being translated into.

As to the "letter" I see no reason to even include it in the conversation concerning the LXX.

Puts your 'reason' ability in question.

The 'Letter of Aristeas' is the only evidence for the Septuagint.

If you think you have more, say on.

But, why do you respond to a reply to another, and not to the one to you? #(21)

Lees

 

[Lees]

A lie is an untruth with an intent to deceive.

Septuagint actually kind of rolls off the tongue quite naturally don't you think? I'm fairly certain that might be ruined by a two.

I think God probably knows human nature better than we do and might be a lovely advertiser - who knows?

So the Septuagint is sold as having 70 scholars so you buy the book and guess what? Way more than you bargained for because not only was the book translated by 70 scholars, but 2 angels contributed also unawares...

Now that was a bargain, and a cool selling point.

We can do anything when we create motives out of thin air... It's better to instead to take things at face value with humility and faith in God - and that is hard sometimes, we are just people - and learn from the best scholars why we use this text, and why it's important.

I would think this is Biblical advice to give a person. In the information age, I rather doubt there's any excuse for not knowing a thing. When the world is at our fingertips we may as well put learning to good use.

I must say, some of what you say I find hard to follow. But, I think you are looking in the right direction.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Which is it. God protects his word. Or our Bibles that contain his word are unreliable.

You place too much emphasis on a letter you say is a fraud. What is a fraudulent about the letter? The content of the letter? What does that have to do with whether or not the Septuagint is reliable or not. In your assertion that the KJV is the only reliable source (if that is what you are doing, you have not said) Tyndale translated that into English from the Hebrew that was available. Our English Bibles have come from his translations. They have been adjusted over the years as more documents are found and to make the reading of them more clear to the modern reader. Even the scribal errors that are found and rectified as more documents came available, do it change any of the truths. They are minor.

What is needed since the entire focus to support your claim of unreliability is based on a single letter being a fraud, you need to change that focus to the science and art of textual criticism.

There are better and more detailed accounts of this, including the Septuagint than the link I provide, but it will maybe be enough to set you on the right track. Instead of declaring to the Christians on the forum and possible brand new Christian lurking, that our Bible is unreliable.

blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm
The best I have found so far is actually contained in my Reformation Bible. An article by T. Desmond Alexander and The Bible in Church History by Stephen J. Nichols. I tried to find them online but could not.

What we have in our Bibles, including the Septuagint as the OT translated to Greek, is the result of an unimaginable difficult and intense task of textual analysis. Not just taking things for granted.

Our Bibles that contain His Word are reliable. But, have we not always contended as to what makes up our Bible?

How can too much emphasis be placed on a fraudulent letter that is the only evidence for any so called 'Septuagint'? It is important because the 'letter of Aristeas' is the only evidence for a 'Septuagint'. Do you have more?

Yes, I have not said. You are quick to attack the KJV due to this thread questioning the Septuagint. Why? Are the two related. Interesting. You may have a point.

Well, guess what? If you can't admit that the 'Letter of Aristeas' is a lie, then what good would any change of focus do? And if the 'Letter of Aristeas' is fraudulent, then so is the Septuagint. Because that is the only evidence for any said 'Septuagint'.

Do not falsely represent me saying I say the 'Bible is unreliable'. I have never said that. The Bible is the Word of God and totally reliable. And it doesn't need the lie of the 'Septuagint' to make it so.

It is not I that is taking things for granted. And it doesn't take much to see that the Seputagint is a fraud. Oh yes, 'textual anyalysis'. Those trying to peddle the Septuagint use those pharses very well. Sounds so 'authoratative'.

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

The 'Letter of Aristeas' is the only evidence for the Septuagint.

How is it the only evidence?

 

[Lees]

How is it the only evidence?

Good question. Hard to produce more out of none.

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

Good question. Hard to produce more out of none.

Lees

Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint......should we find all of those verses and draw a line through them with a marky?

 

[Arial]

How can too much emphasis be placed on a fraudulent letter that is the only evidence for any so called 'Septuagint'? It is important because the 'letter of Aristeas' is the only evidence for a 'Septuagint'. Do you have more?

It isn't the only evidence. Jesus's and the apostles quoted from it. Just because the letter and what was in it was embellished or fabricated, does not mean that there is no Greek translation of the OT. And the Septuagint only deals with the Torah. (And the title derives from the letter, possibly) Septuagint - Wikipedia

Yes, I have not said. You are quick to attack the KJV due to this thread questioning the Septuagint. Why? Are the two related. Interesting. You may have a point.

I in no way attacked the KJV. Why do you always do this? Put your words in the mouths of others. I did ask if you were KJV only and you have not answered me.

Do not falsely represent me saying I say the 'Bible is unreliable'. I have never said that. The Bible is the Word of God and totally reliable. And it doesn't need the lie of the 'Septuagint' to make it so.

The letter may be a lie, but the Septuagint exists. When you say what you say below, your cast doubt on the reliability of our Bibles. Why? Because a Greek translation of the OT from the MT is one of the tools used in textual criticism, that has resulted in our Bibles.

I am saying the Septuagint cannot be trusted. The Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text, can be trusted.

It is not I that is taking things for granted. And it doesn't take much to see that the Seputagint is a fraud. Oh yes, 'textual anyalysis'. Those trying to peddle the Septuagint use those pharses very well. Sounds so 'authoratative'.

Textual criticism is what dominated the MT. It is what dominates our modern Bibles, and all legitimate translations. And I am neither agreeing with you or disagreeing, that the information in the letter was fraudulent as to its claim of how the Greek translation of the OT came to be. That is really irrelevant. There is a Septuagint---a Greek translation of the OT. It became necessary because of the scattering of the Jews who spoke and read Greek. It was also translated into Aramaic in the ancient world. Portions of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic. There was the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshita, and various Latin versions of the OT. Textual Criticism consults all these, and now the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. It is meticulous work, finding the similarities and discrepancies, some as fine as the stroke made by a feather quill dipped in ink.

Though there is still much to be learned about how our OT came to be, "we may be certain that what we read in our English Bibles, allowing for translation, accurately reflects the original autographs." (T.Desmond Alexander.) And the translation errors that have been found, when corrected by considering all the sources, have been found to not alter the overall sense of the verse.

(Try to post without condescension. See underlined portion.)

Why trust a translation based upon a lie?

What translations would that be?

 

[Rella]

What has allegedly been transferred into the Septuagint / LXX that you find so wrong?

Some like KJV because they feel that the number of translators make it fairly error proof. Well, I'll tell you there are things in that well known translation that seem faulty but the worst to me is th eword Easter ( Acts 12:4) where every other translation says Passover is a glaring err.
First... there were no Easter celebrations other then Pagan ones back then, and for Jimmy's men to name Easter .... NO!!!!

Then we have the things that are written in the Book of Enoch.

OK you want more readily available... The gnostic gospels. and even the deadsea scrolls.... and my current favorite the Didache... especially the article on "Didache and Trinity: Proto-Trinitarianism in an Early Christian Community" by Daniel Nessim
Not everything that did not make it into the biblical canon is in total error.
And there are questions on things within our canon.
Gen 2: 23-24
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

There is a problem in vs 24. YOU figure it out.
Look how many more books are in the RCC bible, and the Orthodox differs there.

How many have read the Etheopian Bible? It is partially available online. Genesis is especially interesting in their description of days.
And it has 88 books in their canon.

 

[CrowCross]

What has allegedly been transferred into the Septuagint / LXX that you find so wrong?

@Lees


One difference is found in Genesis.

There are verses such as Gen 11:12 which state....And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: in the Masoretic text where in the Septuagint it says....12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

For some reason a 100 years was added or taken away.

We see this repeated down through verse 24.

Who's right? I don't know.

 

[Lees]

Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint......should we find all of those verses and draw a line through them with a marky?

You can draw a line wherever you like. How can they be taken from the Septuagint when there is no Septuagint. Where then are they taken from?

Lees

 

[Lees]

It isn't the only evidence. Jesus's and the apostles quoted from it. Just because the letter and what was in it was embellished or fabricated, does not mean that there is no Greek translation of the OT. And the Septuagint only deals with the Torah. (And the title derives from the letter, possibly) Septuagint - Wikipedia

I in no way attacked the KJV. Why do you always do this? Put your words in the mouths of others. I did ask if you were KJV only and you have not answered me.

The letter may be a lie, but the Septuagint exists. When you say what you say below, your cast doubt on the reliability of our Bibles. Why? Because a Greek translation of the OT from the MT is one of the tools used in textual criticism, that has resulted in our Bibles.


Textual criticism is what dominated the MT. It is what dominates our modern Bibles, and all legitimate translations. And I am neither agreeing with you or disagreeing, that the information in the letter was fraudulent as to its claim of how the Greek translation of the OT came to be. That is really irrelevant. There is a Septuagint---a Greek translation of the OT. It became necessary because of the scattering of the Jews who spoke and read Greek. It was also translated into Aramaic in the ancient world. Portions of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic. There was the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshita, and various Latin versions of the OT. Textual Criticism consults all these, and now the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. It is meticulous work, finding the similarities and discrepancies, some as fine as the stroke made by a feather quill dipped in ink.

Though there is still much to be learned about how our OT came to be, "we may be certain that what we read in our English Bibles, allowing for translation, accurately reflects the original autographs." (T.Desmond Alexander.) And the translation errors that have been found, when corrected by considering all the sources, have been found to not alter the overall sense of the verse.

(Try to post without condescension. See underlined portion.)

What translations would that be?

No they didn't. That is the common belief. By the way, why would Jesus quote a Greek translation when He was speaking to Jews? Oh, just because the only evidence for a Septuagint is a lie, you still want to believe the translation occurred? Yes, at the first it was the Torah, but then later the whole of the Old Testament was translated into the so called Septuagint. But of course no one knows how or when or where. It just happened...much like the fable of Aristeas.

I have said before, perhaps not in this thread, that I believe the King James Version is the best and safest version there is. All modern versions I would not trust.

If you want to call the Greek translations of the Old Testament, Greek translations, that is fine. Go to your Alexandrain Texts. Vaticanus, Siniaiticus, and Alexandrinus. They help make up what is known as the Minority Texts.

Are we not talking about the Septuagint? Based upon the lie of Aristeas.

Lees

 

[Hazelelponi]

You can draw a line wherever you like. How can they be taken from the Septuagint when there is no Septuagint. Where then are they taken from?

Lees

What do you mean there's no Septuagint - Christ Himself quoted from it.

As Christians we accept all the books Jesus quoted from, which includes the Septuagint.

 

[Arial]

No they didn't.

No, who didn't what? You quoted my entire post. If you are saying the M did not use textual criticism you are sadly mistaken. I am guessing you simply do not know what that is or how it is done.

By the way, why would Jesus quote a Greek translation when He was speaking to Jews?

If he wasn't quoting from a Greek translation it still is the same as what is in the Greek translation substantively. But many Jews spoke Greek which is why it became necessary for there to be a Greek translation. And many spoke Aramaic. There is a good chance Jesus did.

Oh, just because the only evidence for a Septuagint is a lie, you still want to believe the translation occurred?

I cannot fathom how you conclude that if what was in a letter as to how the Septuagint came into being was false, that means there was no Greek translation. The Septuagint is not in the letter is it?

Yes, at the first it was the Torah, but then later the whole of the Old Testament was translated into the so called Septuagint. But of course no one knows how or when or where. It just happened...much like the fable of Aristeas.

The earliest translations of individual OT books into Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, go back as far as the third century b.c..The most significant of these is the Greek. Of the Greek the Codex Vaticanus (fourth century a.d.) preserves a nearly complete Greek translation of the OT.

Are we not talking about the Septuagint? Based upon the lie of Aristeas.

All Greek translations of the OT are considered the Septuagint. That is what they are called. None are basing anything on the letter. The letter of Aristeas is not the Septuagint. What is known as the Greek OT, called the Septuagint, has nothing to do with a letter. If the letter was fraudulent or its contents were, it is no way related to actual Greek translations of the OT and it does not mean that there are none, and it certainly does not mean that our translations should not rely in any way on Greek translations. And it seems like that is what you are implying. If you are not, then you need to be clear.

 

[Rella]

@Lees


One difference is found in Genesis.

There are verses such as Gen 11:12 which state....And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: in the Masoretic text where in the Septuagint it says....12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

For some reason a 100 years was added or taken away.

We see this repeated down through verse 24.

Who's right? I don't know.

It is 35 years... only the Septuagint says 135.

Which is why I double and triple check facts.

Translations from Aramaic
Lamsa Bible
And Arphakhashar lived thirty-five years, and begot Shalah;

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated
And Arphakshar lived thirty and five years and he begot Shalakh:

OT Translations
JPS Tanakh 1917
And Arpachshad lived five and thirty years, and begot Shelah.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

So, Brentons Septuagint added 100 years.

This translation Genesis 11 - LXX - Bible Study Tools

12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

Dead Sea Scrolls Gen 11-16 - Reciting the Dead Sea Scrolls

12 And Arpachshad lived thirty five years and fathered Salah.

Ethiopian Bible Genesis 11 | In Amharic and English (with Amharic MP3) - LOJSociety | Lion Of Judah Society | RasTafari Groundation

12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

This may offer some insight... but I cannot read it right now.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=icc_proceedings

THE GENEVA BIBLE OF 1599 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 11 - 1599 Geneva Bible

12 Also Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah.

So it is decided and declared to be 35 years

​

​

​

 

[Fred]

You say some New Testament writers quoted from it. What did they quote from?

Both Acts 2:20 and Acts 2:21 are exact quotations from the LXX.