Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight is the third and final message in the series on Discovering the Septuagint. For the reasons I've explained over the past two nights, I hold to the early Christian view that the Septuagint was the Old Testament that God providentially provided for the Greek-speaking Jews and for the Gentile world. It's the Old Testament that God chose to build His Church on and to plant the gospel throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.
Last night, we talked about an alternative view to explain why Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament writers all use the Septuagint about 90% of the time when they quote from the Old Testament. And this is the view put forth by the respected evangelical scholar, Gleason Archer. He argues that the disciples and New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint merely because the Septuagint was the only Bible the Greek-speaking world had.
He says it would have weakened the spread of the gospel if the apostles were quoting from a different text than what all the Greek-speaking world was using. In other words, the Septuagint just happened to be there and the apostles made use of it. It had not been providentially provided by God. When I finished last night, we were talking about a number of the problems with this theory. Tonight we're going to begin where I left off, looking at some more problems with what I call the Archer theory.
As we saw earlier, Jesus and His apostles nearly always quoted from the Septuagint when they quoted scripture, and Archer acknowledges this. Now, if the Septuagint is not the true Word of God, and if it is defective, it means that our New Testament contains errors as a result. For example, in Matthew 12 verses 16 through 21, we read this about Jesus.
" He warned them not to make him known that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, " Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased. " I'm not going to read the entire passage, but as we get down to verse 21, it closes with these words, " And in His Name, the Gentiles will trust. " Now there Jesus is quoting Isaiah 42, verses 1-4, and he's quoting from the Septuagint.
Now when we look up that passage in the Masoretic text, it ends with the words, " And the coastlands shall wait for his law. " It does not say, and in his name, the Gentiles will trust. So the question is, did Isaiah say, in his name the Gentiles will trust, or didn't he say it? And it's not a minor point. It's a very important Messianic prophecy. However, if the Archer theory is true, then Isaiah never said those words. It's an error in the Septuagint, a mistranslation. Paul is quoting Isaiah in error.
So now the supposed errors of the Septuagint have come into our New Testament. We've already looked at example after example where the New Testament states that a prophet has said such and such. But if the Masoretic text is the one true text of the Old Testament, then those prophets said no such thing. The New Testament is stating something in error. But of course, none of us believe that the New Testament contains error.
So Isaiah and the other prophets must have said the very thing that the apostles declared that they had said, the things that are recorded in the Septuagint. There is one last problem with the Archer theory that I want to talk about. As I read to you earlier, Archer says that the apostles only quoted from the Septuagint because they had no choice when taking the gospel to the Gentiles and to the Jews of the dispersion. Now, the following was not in the part of the quotation I read to you, but Dr.
Archer went on to say further that whenever the apostles weren't constrained by the needs of the Gentiles, then they immediately went back to the Masoretic text and quoted from it. He names only two New Testament books that supposedly fit that situation, the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this simply is not true. First of all, Jesus never left Palestine, but when he quoted scripture, he nearly always quotes from the Septuagint.
More than that, we've seen how in those two instances where he rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, he quoted the Septuagint to them. They were not Gentiles, and they were not part of the dispersion or diaspora. More than that, in both instances, you'll remember that Jesus ' rebuke to them depended on the language of the Septuagint. The rendering in the Masoretic Text wouldn't have worked. We also saw how Jesus read from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth from the Septuagint.
Second, we've seen how so many Messianic prophecies turn on the language of the Septuagint. The apostles didn't quote from the Septuagint simply because it was the only Bible their readers were familiar with, which would have been one reason. But they also quoted it because so many times the point they were getting across or the prophecy about Jesus they were citing is found only in the language of the Septuagint, not in the Masoretic text.
Finally, Archer repeats the same fallacy that was begun by Jerome, which we'll be talking about in a moment. That fallacy is that the apostles and other New Testament writers knew Hebrew. Now, except for Paul and perhaps Matthew, we have absolutely no evidence that any of the New Testament writers knew Hebrew. Now, I do think it's a reasonable assumption that Paul knew Hebrew due to his rabbinic studies. But we don't even know that for certain. When Paul was in Jerusalem, he spoke in the Hebrew dialect.
But as we've already discussed, that more likely refers to Aramaic than to Hebrew. As to Matthew, as I've mentioned, the early Christians reported that he originally wrote his gospel in the Hebrew dialect. Again, this most likely would have been Aramaic. But whether it was Hebrew or Aramaic, a large number of Matthew's original readers would not have been able to read the Septuagint. So it's not surprising that a number of his quotations are more similar to the Masoretic text than the Septuagint.
Yet even then, more of Matthew's quotations follow the Septuagint than they do the Masoretic text. As to the epistle to the Hebrews, I could hardly believe that Dr. Archer said what he did. Because when I want to show people proof that the New Testament writers were quoting from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. Hebrews is usually the book I go to first for examples. If some of the quotations in Hebrews fit the Masoretic text, far, far more fit the Septuagint.
In fact, they so often turn on the wording of the Septuagint. Given all of the evidence we've seen, and given the fact that the early Christians staunchly defended the Septuagint as the authoritative text of the Old Testament, the question naturally arises, why are our Old Testaments today nearly always translated from the Masoretic text, not the Septuagint? Well, the answer is no mystery. We know exactly who made the switch and the dishonest way he got away with it. So let me relate the story to you.
As I mentioned earlier, the unbelieving Jews heaped ridicule on the early Christians, telling them that their Bible was corrupt because it didn't match the Hebrew text used by the Jews. Now, we know now that the Septuagint was based on a different Hebrew text family than the Masoretic text. However, as I previously mentioned, the early Christians didn't know that.
So it was difficult for the early Christians to answer the ridicule the Jews were heaping upon the Septuagint, other than to accuse the Jews of tampering with Scripture. Regardless, the Church remained steadfastly loyal to the Septuagint, based on their faith that God had providentially provided the Church with the correct Old Testament. Moreover, the Septuagint was authoritative to the early Christians because Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint most of the time when they quoted scripture.
However, after Constantine, many of the original teachings and practices of the early Church were changed. For example, the Church lost non-resistance. It lost the teaching of the two kingdoms, non-swearing, non-conformity, things like that. Instead of humbly accepting the faith that had been handed down to them, the theologians of the 4th century thought that they knew more than the Christians who preceded them. One such theologian was Jerome, who was Secretary to Pope Damasus.
The Pope was concerned with the fact that there was no single authoritative Latin translation of the Bible of both the Old and the New Testaments. There were several competing versions of Latin translations, and many of them contained obvious errors. They were not done under any official sanction of the Church. They were just done by individuals who were helping to spread the gospel. So the Pope commissioned Jerome to make a new Latin translation of the whole Bible.
Now, it was understood that Jerome would use the Septuagint as the basis for his Old Testament translation. However, Jerome had been greatly influenced by the criticisms of the Septuagint by the unbelieving Jews. So he moved to Bethlehem and began studying Hebrew from the Jews so that he could translate the Old Testament from their Hebrew manuscripts. It never occurred to Jerome that perhaps the Hebrew text of his day was quite different from the Hebrew text used by the translators of the Septuagint.
No, in his mind, he was going back to the original Hebrew text. In fact, in his preface to the book of Isaiah, which was translated from the Masoretic text, he said this, " The Jews can no longer scoff at our churches because of the falsity of our scriptures. " In short, Jerome switched to the Masoretic text because he believed the false accusations the Jews were making.
And because he lacked faith in God's providential guidance of the Septuagint, and he arrogantly thought he knew more than all of the Christians that preceded him. Well, when Jerome was finished with his translation, the Church was shocked. I mean, they couldn't believe anyone would have the gall to unilaterally change the Old Testament text that the Church had embraced from the beginning. Even Jerome's good friend, Augustine, criticized him. Well, to defend himself, Jerome lied to the church.
He wrote this: " I was encouraged above all by the authoritative writings of the evangelists and apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament, which is not found in our manuscripts, meaning in the Septuagint. For example, out of Egypt I have called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene. He continues, " Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to answer, I will produce them from the Hebrew.
" Otherwise, the Holy Spirit must have quoted the same books in one sense through the 70 translators, and in another way through the apostles, so that whereas the 70 said nothing of a given matter, the apostles falsely affirmed that it was so written. He says, " I do not condemn, I do not censure the 70, but I'm bold enough to prefer the apostles to them all. " Wherever in translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews. Consult their teachers in different towns.
The words which exist in their scriptures concerning Christ, your copies do not contain. Our Lord and Savior Himself, whenever He refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotation from the Hebrew, meaning the Masoretic text. Whenever the 70 agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation. But where they disagree, they sat down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.
Now, let my critics show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint, but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end. " When I read this passage from Jerome, I was stunned. I mean, it is one thing to simply be mistaken about a matter. A very godly Christian can make mistakes, but Jerome was out and out lying.
I mean, contrary to Jerome's false claims, every textual scholar today acknowledges that Jesus and the apostles nearly always quote from the Septuagint, not from the Masoretic text. We have seen time and time again that the point the apostles were making so often depended upon the language of the Septuagint. They not only quote from the Septuagint when it agrees with the Masoretic Text, but they particularly quote from it when it disagrees with the Masoretic Text.
Now, as I've mentioned, sometimes the point the New Testament writers were making, or that Jesus was making, does turn on the language of the Masoretic Text. They do occasionally quote from the Masoretic Text or a text like it. But where the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint differ, 80% of the time, Jesus and the Apostles go with the Septuagint, and only about 20% of the time do they go with the Masoretic Text. Now, one of those instances where they follow the Masoretic Text is the prophecy Jerome quotes.
" Out of Egypt I called my son, " which is cited by Matthew in Matthew 2:15. Now Matthew is quoting from Hosea chapter 11:1. The Septuagint reads almost identically to the Masoretic text, but it says, " Out of Egypt I called my sons plural. " Now, Jerome's other example is just simply dishonest. He cites Matthew 2: 18, " He shall be called a Nazarene. " Now, nobody in the church had been able to figure out what this prophecy was referring to.
And of course, switching from the Septuagint to the Masoretic text doesn't help things. Scholars today still don't know what Matthew was referring to. But Jerome cleverly and dishonestly claimed that he had found the answer by going back to the Hebrew text. Jerome's closing challenge to his opponents was equally dishonest. He said, " Let my critics show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the 70, but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.
" Well, he knew full well that none of his critics knew how to read Hebrew, so they couldn't answer his challenge. Today, anyone can easily point to many quotations in the New Testament that can be found in the Septuagint, but not in the Masoretic text. Now, if Jerome had been a man of integrity, his Latin Vulgate would have been dead on arrival. That's because all the familiar prophecies in the Septuagint about the Messiah would have disappeared. Young woman would have replaced Virgin in Isaiah 7.
The familiar terminology of the Psalms, which the Church sang every Sunday, would have been gone. In Exodus, references to the Red Sea would have disappeared, being replaced by the name " Sea of Reeds, " which is how it is designated in the Masoretic text. Finally, to a Christian audience who had never even heard of Yahweh or Jehovah, suddenly they would be reading that name 6,800 times throughout the Old Testament. But not being a man of integrity, Jerome simply fudged.
He kept all of the Messianic prophecies from the Septuagint and substituted them for the reading of the Masoretic text. He retained the word " virgin " in Isaiah 7. He kept most of the familiar language from the Psalms. He followed the Septuagint and using the titles God and Lord instead of Yahweh. He used Red Sea instead of Sea of Reeds, and so on.
So he made it appear that by going to the Masoretic Text, he was able to pick up the Messianic prophecies missing from the Septuagint without losing any Messianic prophecies in the process. It seemed to be a win-win situation all the way around. But this was only because of his dishonesty. Yet even with all of this fudging, Jerome's Latin Vulgate would have probably never prevailed were it not for the times in which he lived. The Western Empire was collapsing under the waves of barbarian invasions.
The Western Church was now focused on surviving, not on the Bible texts they used. As learning disappeared in the West, people began to believe the falsehoods that Jerome had published. Eventually, his Latin Vulgate became THE Bible of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, over the centuries, most of the writings of the pre-Nicene Christians disappeared in the West, particularly those who wrote in Greek. So Western Christians largely forgot that there was such a thing as the Septuagint.
In contrast, Jerome's writings were preserved, and he eventually acquired the status in the Roman Catholic Church as one of the great church fathers. So over time, all that most medieval Western theologians knew about the Septuagint were the myths that Jerome had created. Among these were, number one, the Septuagint was a sloppy translation of the Hebrew text. Sometimes the translators added things on their own initiative, and at other times they left things out.
Number two, that the Jews were still in possession of the original Hebrew text, just as it was written by Moses and others. A third myth was that Jesus and His apostles recognized the Septuagint as a corrupt text, so they only quoted from it where it read the same as the original Hebrew, or where it didn't make any difference.
And finally, number four, that the Apostles and other New Testament writers all knew Hebrew, so they simply made their own translations into Greek from the Hebrew text when the Septuagint didn't agree with the Masoretic text. Not only did the medieval scholars and theologians fall for Jerome's lies, but so did the Reformers. Most of the Greek early Christian writings were not available in the West when the Reformation began.
So there was little to educate the Reformers to the fact that the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the Church in the beginning. So when Luther decided to translate the Bible into German, he bypassed the Septuagint and used the Jewish Masoretic text of his day. His example was later followed by Tyndale and Calvin. As a result, all of the Bibles that came out of the Reformation carried Jerome's ideas and errors. And every one of them followed Jerome's example of fudging.
Now, none of them did it as blatantly as Jerome had, but they did keep virgin in Isaiah 7. They substituted God or Lord for Yahweh. They inserted Red Sea in place of Sea of Reeds. And they often kept some additional Messianic prophecies or terminology from the Septuagint. Even the beloved translators of the King James Version repeated Jerome's falsehoods almost verbatim in the introduction to the 1611 King James Version. Of course, those translators didn't realize they were publishing falsehoods.
By their day, Jerome's original lies had penetrated every single nook and cranny of the Western Church. And like the Protestant translators before them, the King James translators also fudged on Virgin, Red Sea, and Yahweh, or Jehovah. In fact, Jerome was so effective with his falsehoods that many of them linger to this very day.
I mean, just a few months ago, I was reading a conservative evangelical reference work, and the writer stated that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint when it agreed with the Masoretic text, but where it differed, they made their own translation into Greek from the, quote, " original Hebrew. " You know, I could hardly believe that Jerome's falsehoods have lasted to this very day despite the fact that they can easily be shown to be false. And that's how the Septuagint disappeared in Western Christendom.
The reason I say Western Christendom is because outside of the Western Roman Empire, Christians in Jerome's day and thereafter continued to use the Septuagint. This was just in the Roman Catholic Church and in the reform movements that broke off from it. In fact, the Septuagint is still the Old Testament today for all of the Eastern Orthodox churches, for the Coptic Church, and for the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
However, since most Christians here in the Americas and in Western Europe, we've all received our spiritual heritage through the Western Church. As a result, the Septuagint is still somewhat an unfamiliar entity to most Christians here. However, there finally was the dawning of a new day. Around the beginning of the 20th century, certain Bible scholars began questioning Jerome's assertions.
They saw for themselves that Jesus and His apostles quoted primarily from the Septuagint, which was just the opposite of what Jerome had said. And as interest in Bible text was growing, these scholars correctly surmised that the Septuagint was not a sloppy translation of the Masoretic text. Rather, it was a translation of a different Hebrew text, a text that was older than the Masoretic text.
For example, the 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states this: " It was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is beyond doubt that it originated in the Rabbinical School. The main value of the Septuagint is its witness to an older Hebrew text than our own.
But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text, we need to have a pure Greek text before us. The modern critic recognizes that the Septuagint on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Hebrew are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. " So there was now a rebirth of interest in the Septuagint. Now, what that Bible Encyclopedia from 1915 conjectures about the Masoretic text is actually not correct.
From the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that there were different text families before the end of the first century. The rabbis didn't revise the text at that time. Rather, the change was that they jettisoned the Septuagint and insisted on using only that one text type, the Proto-Masoretic type. Unfortunately, this interest in the Septuagint was almost exclusively in the scholarly circles, and typically it was only among the liberal scholars.
They were right that the Septuagint had been translated from a different Hebrew text than the Masoretic text, but they didn't yet have any proof for their theory. However, the proof finally came with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls between the years 1947 and 1956. Sadly, most of these scrolls were not translated or even made available to the scholarly community until the 1980s and 1990s.
When scholars finally were able to examine these manuscripts, they realized that the Septuagint was not a faulty translation of the Masoretic text. Rather, it was a translation based on a different Hebrew text than the Masoretic text. Well, overnight, this changed the entire view that the scholarly community had of the Septuagint. And as a result, there's been a much renewed interest in it, no longer just in liberal circles, but in conservative ones as well.
The faith of the early Christians in the Septuagint has finally been vindicated after 1,600 years. A person raised the question to me, how can the Dead Sea Scrolls be a victory for the Septuagint? According to Emanuel Tov, one of the leading researchers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 60% of the scrolls are of the Masoretic Text Type, and only 5% are of the Septuagintal text type. Well, that's a valid question. Let me explain.
I'm not saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a victory of the Septuagint over the Masoretic Text, because these scrolls have been a huge boost for the Masoretic text as well and for its supporters. The great significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Septuagint is that they provide solid proof that the Septuagint is not a sloppy, imperfect translation of the Masoretic text. It's a translation made from a different Old Testament text family. Now, that is hugely significant.
Remember, ever since the 2nd century AD, the unbelieving Jews have been accusing the Septuagint of being a corrupt translation of the Masoretic text. They've been claiming that in the Masoretic text, they possess the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. And then in the early 5th century, as we've learned, Jerome jumped on the Jewish bandwagon and added his voice to these claims.
Eventually, the entire Western Church was making this claim that the Masoretic text represents the original Hebrew, and that the translators of the Septuagint did a rather poor job of translating the " original Hebrew. " Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, those who stood by the Septuagint had to do so based on faith, faith that Jesus and the apostles correctly quoted the Scriptures, and faith that God had founded His Church on the correct Old Testament text. Now, this wasn't blind faith.
It was well-founded faith in God's providential guidance of His Church. But today, finally, the faith that the early Christians put in the Septuagint has been vindicated. The Jews claim that it is an inaccurate translation have finally been answered. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is no longer any textual scholar who would claim that the Masoretic text reflects the original Hebrew. Now, please don't misunderstand me, neither would those scholars say that the Septuagint was translated from the original Hebrew.
Rather, they recognize today that there were a variety of text families. Yet they nearly all say that the Septuagintal family represents the older family. Now you would think that would cause them to endorse the Septuagint, but they still don't. However, many scholars do say that it stands on equal footing now with the Masoretic Text family. However, not everyone has rejoiced about these discoveries that have boosted the status of the Septuagint.
It has generally not been well-received by Christians who believe that the King James Version is an inspired translation, or at least it's a providentially provided translation for the English-speaking world. Now, these Christians are often referred to as King James Only Christians. And I can understand, nobody likes to have their spiritual world turned upside down. Nobody likes to have their cherished beliefs challenged. Growing up, I was no different.
I would have argued and contended to the end for the beliefs I grew up with and for the sect of which I was a member. As a young man, I would have told you that if everyone else left our group, I would never leave. I would defend it to the end. But then I discovered evidence that was so overwhelming, so significant, I couldn't possibly ignore it. And that evidence led my wife and I to leave that group that we had both grown up in.
Now, for many years, I felt that this was the great tragedy of my life, my having grown up in a sect that was wrong on so many things. Well, now I realize it was one of the greatest blessings of my life. Why? Because I was eventually forced to lay down everything I believed, having nothing but Christ Himself. I could then objectively examine all the evidence to discover what is true about Christianity. I came to the place where I no longer had a position I had to defend on any issue other than Christianity itself.
This opened the door where I could objectively and joyfully examine the evidence on any doctrine or topic within the confines of Christianity and not be afraid of what I might discover. As I've mentioned, just like others, I grew up with the Masoretic text as my Old Testament. I had learned as a young boy about the great Isaiah scroll that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. I had been told that it read exactly like the Masoretic text used today, except for a few minor variations in spelling.
So I was utterly surprised to discover that the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Christians. And I was totally stunned to find out that the Masoretic text was championed by the unbelieving Jews while the Septuagint was championed by the Church. However, once again, the evidence was too plain to deny. And why would I want to deny it? It explained to me why the quotations in the New Testament so often didn't fit that same passage when I looked it up in the Old Testament.
Embracing the Septuagint also cleared up a number of Bible difficulties, like the passage with David and Saul that I had wondered about for years. At the same time, I realized that many, if not most, of my fellow conservative Christians have grown up in environments where they've never had to lay everything on the table and look at evidence objectively. Or perhaps they've done this in a few areas, but not others. And I have no desire to belittle such believers.
The question of the Septuagint is not a salvation issue. I don't have any desire to rock anyone's spiritual world or to force the Septuagint on them. And I realized that Scroll Publishing's approach to research and truth doesn't fit everyone. Our ministry is founded on two key principles when it comes to researching any biblical topic. And that is one, begin with a blank slate. If you've already made up your mind what the truth is, then there's no point researching it. You've already decided.
Number two, go back to the primary sources to do your research. Quoting from someone else's book means absolutely nothing. Now, if someone has truly done that, but has come to a different conclusion than I have on any subject, I'm glad to look at the evidence together and see why we've come to different conclusions. I actually find that kind of interaction and cross-pollination to be edifying. And I want to always be open to examine my own conclusions.
Now, I wish it were possible to have that kind of discussion with a King James Only Believer or a Masoretic Text Traditionalist. And I don't mean any of those terms in a negative sense. However, I've learned from experience that it's not possible to have an open discussion. Christians who've fallen those categories have already started out with their conclusion. In their minds, the King James Bible is God's perfect, ordained word. Every other version of the Bible is corrupt, at best.
And at worst, these other versions are Satan's New Age deceptions. Now please understand I'm no enemy of the King James Bible, particularly the original 1611 version, I think is one of the best overall English translations ever made. However, its translators never claim to be inspired, and I don't view them as inspired or as inerrant translators. Sixty years ago, most King James only believers had no opinion about the Septuagint. It wasn't on their radar or anyone else's radar for that matter.
However, because of these Dead Sea Scroll discoveries and the new excitement about the Septuagint, the Septuagint is now not only on their radar, it's in their gun sights. Sadly, they've become the most vocal enemies of the Septuagint. They attack it with as much venom and ridicule as did the unbelieving Jews of the 2nd century. My original plan for this third message of this set was to address as many of the arguments as I had time to that King James only believers put forth in opposition to the Septuagint.
However, I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless. Since their minds are already made up, and they were made up before they knew anything about the Septuagint, there is absolutely no evidence I could put forward that would change their minds. It would be like trying to argue with a criminal defense attorney who is adamantly defending his client who is being charged with murder. The conversation would go something like this.
I would say, " Look, there's really no point arguing about this because your client has already signed a confession, admitting he committed the crime. " But the attorney replies, " He was coerced into signing that confession. He has since totally repudiated it. " I would reply, " Yes, but there's a number of witnesses who saw him stab the victim to death. " An attorney responds, " It was dark that night. There was little light in that area, and those witnesses are simply mistaken.
They thought they saw my client, but they saw somebody else. " I say, " Well, look, the police found the bloody knife in your client's apartment, and the victim's DNA is on it. " And the attorney says, " Oh, the police planted that there. " And I finally say, " Yeah, but your client's own sister has said that he told her he had murdered the other man. " And the attorney replies, " Oh, she's lying, " and so on. The attorney is simply never going to admit that his client is guilty.
It's the same trying to have a meaningful discussion about the Septuagint with a King James only person or someone who insists the Masoretic text is God's one true Old Testament text. I could say, " But the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Christians. " And they'll reply, " There never was such a thing as the so-called Septuagint. " I'll say, " But Jesus and the apostles primarily quote from it. " And they'll say, " Oh, that's a myth.
They were translating the Hebrew into Greek on the fly, and so often it does read the same as the so-called Septuagint. But I'll point out, but often the way the New Testament writers quote the Old doesn't fit what the Masoretic text says. And they'll say, " Well, under inspiration, the New Testament writers were bringing out the spiritual meaning of that Old Testament passage.
" But then I'll say, " Well, how come then do these spirit-inspired interpretations of the Old Testament somehow end up reading just like the Septuagint? " And I'll say, " Well, later on, Christians back lost those quotations. They inserted them from the New Testament into the so-called Septuagint, and so on. It's impossible to have an honest, meaningful discussion.
So instead of addressing all of the things that King James Only people and similar traditionalists say about the Septuagint, I want to focus on the objection I hear the most from traditionally minded Christians. It certainly is not an absurd objection. It's worth talking about.
That objection concerns Jesus ' words in the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5:18, where He said, " Assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is fulfilled. " From this statement, people argue that Jesus ' words can only refer to the Hebrew text, and that Jesus is saying that no alteration of even one letter had happened or would ever happen to the Hebrew text, and the Hebrew text they mean is the Masoretic text.
They then make the claim that the Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls reads exactly like the Masoretic text of today. Therefore, they say, " God has preserved every single word and letter of the original Hebrew text through the Masoretic Text. " Obviously then, we should use the Masoretic Text as our Old Testament and not the Septuagint. Well, this argument includes a lot of separate claims, so let's look at them one by one.
First, as with any scripture passage, we have to begin by looking at the context. To do this, we need to read the entire passage, which says this: " Do not think I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. So what is the context of Jesus ' words? Is He talking about textual manuscripts? Not in the least. He's talking about God's commandments.
He said He came to fulfill not to destroy. Now, how do you fulfill a manuscript? He didn't fulfill a manuscript or a text type. He fulfilled the provisions of the law, and he also fulfilled many prophecies. And as we've already seen, so many of those prophecies he fulfilled are found only in the Septuagint, not in the Masoretic text. But let's see what he continues to say. Does he say whoever alters one of these manuscripts shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven?
No, he said, " Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. " The subject of the entire paragraph is obedience to Bible commandments and living righteously. Jesus isn't even remotely talking about the integrity of Bible manuscripts. This is corroborated by the fact when we look at a similar passage in Luke.
There Jesus says, " No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. " The passage continues, " Now the Pharisees who were lovers of money also heard all these things, and they derided him. " And he said to them, " You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
" The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time, the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her, who is divorced from her husband, commits adultery. So when we look at the passage in Luke, it's very clear Jesus is talking about righteousness. He's not talking about Bible manuscripts.
So it is taking a verse totally out of context to try to argue from Jesus ' statement that he was saying that the original autographs of the Old Testament have been preserved without a single variation in a word or even a letter. Now, out of curiosity, I checked what the early Christians said about this passage, and not a single one of them imagined that Christ was talking about Old Testament manuscripts. John Chrysostom represents the thrust of what they all say.
He says, " Now what Jesus is saying is basically this. The law cannot remain unfulfilled. Rather, the very least part of it must be fulfilled. This very thing he himself performed, and that he accomplished it all with exactness. As far as I've been able to determine, this idea that Jesus is talking about Old Testament manuscripts is something of very recent origin that has primarily been put forward by King James only Christians.
Continuing with this argument being made about the jot and tittle, an author recently wrote, " The Sermon on the Mount was almost certainly preached in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, " he says. " Strong makes it clear that Jot and Tittle are of Hebrew origin and refer to the Hebrew alphabet. Tittle refers to the small hooks that differentiate between two Hebrew letters. " Another work I was recently reading said, " Jesus's words can only apply to the Hebrew text. " Well, let's examine these arguments.
To begin with, Aramaic is not a Hebrew dialect. Aramaic was the language of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Persian Empire. The Jews picked up Aramaic from their time of captivity in those empires, and they brought it back with them to Palestine. Aramaic is the larger trunk language of which Hebrew and various Canaanite languages are derivatives. Now, it is certainly possible that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Aramaic, but it is far from a near certainty.
I personally think it is more likely he preached it in Greek. We know his brothers James and Jude spoke Greek, and they did all of their writing in Greek. And we know the uneducated disciples of Jesus also wrote in Greek. As I discussed previously, archaeologists have uncovered more Greek synagogues in Palestine than Aramaic ones. So yes, it is possible that Jesus gave the sermon in Aramaic, but it is just as possible He gave it in Greek.
However, regardless of what language he delivered the sermon in, the only language it was preserved in is Greek. Now, we should be rather skeptical when someone tells us that two Greek words can only refer to the Hebrew alphabet. So then why does Strong's Greek dictionary say that the word iota refers to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet? Well, the basic problem here stems from the medieval and post-Reformation myth that most Jews in Jesus ' day spoke Hebrew.
So the Roman Catholic medieval theologians, the Reformers, and nearly every commentator from the time of the Reformation down till today have all imagined that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount in Hebrew or today they would usually say Aramaic. Very few people ever imagine that Jesus might have actually spoken the sermon in Greek just as it is recorded. Even today, most scholars assume Jesus spoke and taught almost exclusively in Aramaic.
However, there are more and more scholars today who are taking the position that he primarily taught in Greek, which is what I believe as well. So having made the assumption that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Hebrew or Aramaic, these theologians have decided to reverse engineer the terms in the Greek New Testament text to see what Jesus quote really said. Now what we have before us in the New Testament texts is that Jesus said that not one Iota or one keraia would pass away until the law was fulfilled.
But because of their preconceptions, men like Dr. James Strong, who did Strong's Concordance, they automatically assume that Jesus never said those actual words. They assume that Jesus said something in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that Matthew rendered Jesus ' words into Greek. Matthew came up with the words " iota " and " keraia. " They assume Jesus actually said Yod, not iota, Yod being the smallest Hebrew letter. And they concluded that Jesus certainly didn't say keraia.
He must have said something else that refers to the apex of a Hebrew letter. Now, as far as I can tell, no one has been able to come up with the Hebrew or Aramaic word that Jesus supposedly used instead of keraia. What New Testament Greek dictionary should say is that iota is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet. Comparable to the English letter I. Anything more than that is not a definition, it's an interpretation. Likewise, they should define keraia as literally meaning a little horn.
And by implication, it may refer to a tiny particle or part of a letter of the alphabet. But when Bible lexicons start talking about keraia referring to the apex of a Hebrew letter, they have moved away from their role as lexicographer and have crossed into the realm of speculative Bible commentary. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that Jesus was talking about the textual manuscripts. Exactly where is that perfect text?
Even with the Masoretic text, we are nowhere near having a text in which there is absolutely no variation. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were amazed at how little change there had been in the Masoretic text from the 1st century to the 10th, but there was change. A Jewish site that is dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and which is very pro-Masoretic text, says this about the Great Isaiah Scroll.
The version of the text is generally in agreement with the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices, such as the Aleppo Codex. But it contains many variant readings, alternative spellings, scribal errors, and corrections. End quote. In other words, far more than a jot or tittle has changed over the years. In addition, all we're really talking about when we talk about the Great Isaiah Scroll, or any of the other Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, are the consonants.
Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. So all that anyone can actually say is that the consonants between the Great Isaiah Scroll and today's Masoretic Text are in general agreement. However, when we speak of the true Masoretic text, and that is the medieval text and beyond, as opposed to the proto-Masoretic text, which would be represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we're talking about the addition of vowels. The Masoretes, the Jewish scribes of the Middle Ages, added vowel markings to the consonants.
And as we all know, where you add a vowel and what vowels you add make all the difference in the world as to what any given word is. So just because the Great Isaiah Scroll is in general agreement as to the consonants doesn't mean that the 1st century readers of that scroll were reading it with the same meaning as the Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages. And it certainly doesn't mean that that is what Isaiah was intending to say. And here we're just talking about the Great Isaiah Scroll.
There are other Isaiah scrolls among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they have even more variations. In the end, whether we use the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text, it is a total myth that we still have the exact text, word for word, syllable for syllable, as it was originally written down by Moses and the other Old Testament writers. As I said before, God's Word is not dependent on preserving every last word and syllable. If it did, then we would lose God's Word the minute we translated it into another language.
Emanuel Tov, one of the most respected Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, writes this: " It should not be postulated that the Masoretic text is better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text.
" Furthermore, even if we were to surmise that the Masoretic text reflects the " original form of the Bible, " we would still have to decide which form of the Masoretic text reflects this original text, since the Masoretic text itself is represented by many witnesses that differ in small details. So there are not huge differences within the Masoretic Text family, but there are differences. The same as there are differences and variations within the Septuagintal Text family.
One supposition that so many Christians make is that uniformity is evidence of God's providential oversight or blessing. Let's think about that for a moment. Does it represent God's oversight, or does it represent man's oversight? Christians continually praise the Jewish Masoretes for carefully copying the manuscripts they had, even counting the number of letters on each page. However, when we read the Bible, do we find that God set up any scribes or copyists in either the Old Testament or New Testament period?
No, we don't. Did God set forth any rules that were to be followed when copying Scripture? No, He didn't. There are lots of very specific rules in Exodus and Leviticus about sacrifices, the tabernacle, the priests, and many other things. But there are no rules concerning who could copy the scriptures or how they should go about doing it.
Some Christians make it sound like the strict rules the Masoretes followed in the Middle Ages is something that all Jewish copyists did from the very beginning back to the time of Moses. However, there's no record in the Bible of the Jews following any of those kind of practices during the Old Testament period. Jesus commented on the fastidiousness of the scribes and Pharisees in His day, but He didn't praise them for it. He condemned them in strong language, blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
I can't think of a better illustration or application of that point than with regard to the scriptures. The rabbis fought hard to silence the witness of the Septuagint with all of its messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. But then after suppressing the Septuagint within Judaism, then they painstakingly and carefully copied the Old Testament scriptures that they preserved that didn't contain those prophecies. Look at the example of the New Testament.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles set up any scribes to copy the New Testament scriptures, nor did they promulgate any rules for those who took up the task of copying. The result is that there are variations in the New Testament manuscripts. In fact, most of the major variations were there by the year 200. Based on the quotations in the early Christian writings, I would say there was far more textual diversity in the early years of Christianity than later. Things became much more uniform after you had a state church.
Talking about state churches, in the United States, there is no state church. Everyone is free to worship God as their consciences dictate. The result is a huge diversity in the different kinds of churches in America. Now, during the Middle Ages in the West, you did have a state church. The result was uniformity. But was it a God-ordained uniformity or a man-made uniformity? The uniformity in the Masoretic text since the first century proves nothing about God's approval of it.
When the religious leaders lock up God's Bible in a language that most people can't speak I'm talking about biblical Hebrew, you aren't going to have a lot of variation because not every Tom, Dick, and Harry are making copies of it. However, when the Bible is in the language of the people, as was the Septuagint in the New Testament, then it's easy for anyone who can write to make copies of it. The early Church never put any restrictions on who could copy the Septuagint or the New Testament.
However, the rabbinical Jews put very strict restrictions on who could make copies of the Masoretic text. In short, uniformity in no way indicates God's blessing or approval. I want to close by talking about how reading the Septuagint can bless you. When I preach and teach Sunday School, I use the Masoretic Text, because that is what most of my listeners are going to be reading from. However, I use the Septuagint in my personal Bible reading and study.
In addition, my wife, Deborah, and I use it in our nightly Bible reading together. So let me share with you how it has personally blessed Deborah and me. To begin with, we find it very exciting to be reading the same Old Testament text that the first century Christians were reading. After all, for the first century Christians, the term Scriptures primarily meant the Old Testament.
So it's exciting to be reading their version of the Old Testament, how they were understanding things from the past, and how it fits into New Testament teaching. Secondly, as a result of using the Septuagint, when Deborah and I look up an Old Testament passage that is quoted in the New, we nearly always find that it reads essentially the same as Jesus or the Apostles quoted it. Number three, I found that reading regularly from the Septuagint has helped me to connect easier to the writings of the early Christians.
That's because when they quote Scripture, it's always from the Septuagint. And of course, there are far more Old Testament quotations in the writings of the early Christians than there are in the New Testament, just because their writings are so much more voluminous. So familiarity with the Septuagint helps a person to open the whole door to the writings of the early Christians. Fourth, Deborah and I do a lot of comparison between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text when we're reading.
For example, we both normally bring two Bibles with us to church, one that has the Septuagint for the Old Testament and one that has the Masoretic Text. Okay, then when the speaker is reading from the Masoretic Text, for myself, I'll usually follow in the Septuagint, as he's reading from the Masoretic text. I try to notice any significant differences in wording. Now, normally they read very similarly, but often there are some significant variations.
Now, when there's a difficult reading in the Masoretic text or something that's unclear, I pay particular attention to how the Septuagint renders that verse. Often, the Septuagint will clear up the difficulty, although sometimes the difficulty occurs in both texts. Fifth, since Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Masoretic text when it fit their point better, it's certainly valid for us to compare both texts and choose the one that seems most applicable.
In other words, if a Septuagint passage seems hard to understand, Deborah and I will check to see if it makes more sense in the Masoretic text. I like having that choice. The result is that there are far less Old Testament difficulties. Finally, often the Septuagint provides extra information that is not in the Masoretic Text. Other times, the Masoretic Text provides extra material that is not in the Septuagint.
Of course, I know the material in the Masoretic Text, almost by heart, so it's the new material in the Septuagint that particularly stands out when I read it. And often it provides a fuller picture of things, such as the conflict between Cain and Abel. It reads almost the same between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, but the Septuagint contains just a few more details that shed a good bit of light on the subject.
Or in the case of Job, the Septuagint provides his family history so we can know who he was and where he chronologically fits into the events of the Bible. In conclusion, I hope I've accomplished for you what I set out to do in this series of three messages. That was to explain what the Septuagint is, give you its history, explain why it was the Bible of the early Church, relate why the unbelieving Jews eventually rejected it, and how Western Christians eventually came to adopt the Masoretic Text.
And finally, how you will be blessed by reading the Septuagint.