Replies

Here is the "more" I spoke of on Post #65 to you.

*******

Here is the general index to the papers by Will Kinney, an apt researcher o Bible-text history:

http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/will-kinney-kjv-index/ Particularly, his article on the question of a genuine Septuagint is here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

(Will Kinney)

=====excerpt=====

There are many serious theological problems associated with the acceptance of the idea that there existed a widespread and authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament, that subsequently was used and quoted from by the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. There are several things that smack of the serpent's "Yea, hath God said...?" Satanic spirit.

First of all, this whole notion directly implies that all the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted. This in fact is the position held today by most seminaries and Bible translators. All modern translations like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard frequently reject the Hebrew readings and substitute texts taken from the LXX, the Syriac or the Vulgate. Most versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard tell you this in their footnotes.

This "science of textual criticism" directly contradicts the many verses in the Bible where God tells us not to add to nor take away from His inspired words. "The Scripture CANNOT BE BROKEN" - Jesus Christ (John 10:35). It contradicts the idea that God gave His Old Testament revelation ONLY to the Jews in their own Hebrew language. "Unto them were committed the oracles of God." - Romans 3:2.

For an example of how modern scholars and versions are mixed up by believing some of God's words have been lost, please see my article on 1 Samuel 13:1. - http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

Secondly, the use of the LXX version in "reconstructing" the Old Testament implies that God has failed to preserve His words in an inerrant Book. ALL modern versionists, like James White, Doug Kutilek, Gleason Archer, Daniel Wallace, and most pastors today who are not King James Bible only, do NOT BELIEVE that any Bible or any text is NOW the inerrant, inspired, complete and pure word of God. Ask them. They all take the position that "only the originals were inspired", thus denying that any Bible now exists that is the inspired word of God. All we have, according to their view, is "best guess approximations" or the clichéed "reliable versions" of what God may or may not have said. Of course one man's "reliable version" may differ in thousands of words and hundreds of meanings from another man's "reliable version", but, "Hey, the Message is pretty close, isn't it?".

The modern versions pick and choose among the various and conflicting LXX readings, rejecting some and accepting others, yet not in the same places as do the others. None of them agrees with the other modern versions. "In those days there was no king in Israel: Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

Thirdly, a question that no one seems to ever ask is this: If the alleged Pre-Christian LXX version existed and was so widely spread abroad and used by countless thousands, then why, after the New Testament was completed, did at least three or four different men (Origen, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian) attempt to make new Greek translations between 140 A.D. and 240 A.D.? Other editions of the Septuagint were produced by Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius of Alexandria; and these editions seem to have circulated respectively in Palestine, in Syria and Constantinople, and in Egypt. The practice of revision and of local texts is well evidenced in the case of the Greek Old Testament.

If the Lord Jesus and the apostles had given their seal of approval to an already existing and widespread Pre-Christian LXX version by quoting it in the New Testament, this would have given special authority to that particular version. Then why try to overthrow it by making 5 or 6 new ones?

====end of excerpt=====

Will Kinney wrote an article on "Josephus and the LXX" which is an annotated summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999. Kinney noted:

The scholar who wrote this is not a King James Only man, and he accepts the widespread idea that there was some kind of Greek translation of the Old Testament. This makes his research all the more devastating to those who promote the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version. The LXX defenders like to use quotes from people like Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Epiphaneus, Eusebius, Iraneus, and Justin Martyr who refer to the letter of Aristeas as proof of this LXX version, and who themselves further embellished the accounts of this alleged Greek translation.

Here is the paper cited:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/aristeas/

Aristeas to Philocrates

(Summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999)

Here's another analysis of the LXX issue, by Floyd Nolen Jones:

http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis.pdf

Just to offset the above, here is a typical argument that says our KJV and DRB Bibles are false, ad that LXX as we have it today is genuine. It does not seem to me to be a very good position:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

By V. S. Herrell

Here's another one that will make you put your thinking cap on:

http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew

Posted on March 12, 2012

=======

I hope you see why I could not immediately respond with a fuller answer to the main sense of your original post to me. I hope these references will be useful to help you make up your mind about what you had been led to believe concerning the Septuagint.