Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 5
Bercot describes the early Christians being ridiculed by unbelieving Jews for having a “corrupt” Bible, yet remaining “steadfastly loyal” to the Septuagint by faith in God’s providence; what does that posture reveal about early Christian instincts regarding tradition, proof, and public embarrassment?
Another way to ask: Early Christians were mocked by Jews for using a “corrupt” Bible but stayed loyal to the Septuagint because they trusted God’s providence. What does that show about how they handled tradition, evidence, and being embarrassed in public?

Direct Answer Bercot portrays early Christians as willing to endure ridicule and uncertainty about technical proof because they trusted God’s providence and the apostolic pattern, valuing inherited Church usage over avoiding public embarrassment.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says “unbelieving Jews heaped ridicule on the early Christians,” claiming their Bible was “corrupt because it didn’t match the Hebrew text used by the Jews.”
  • He notes the early Christians “didn’t know” about different Hebrew text families, so it was “difficult… to answer the ridicule… other than to accuse the Jews of tampering with Scripture.”
  • Despite that weakness, “the Church remained steadfastly loyal to the Septuagint,” grounded in “their faith that God had providentially provided the Church with the correct Old Testament.”
  • He adds an authority instinct: the Septuagint was “authoritative… because Jesus and the apostles quoted” it “most of the time.”
  • Later he explains this posture as “well-founded faith in God’s providential guidance of His Church,” not “blind faith.”
Discussion Follow-ups What kind of “proof” did early Christians treat as strongest—technical manuscript arguments, or the lived authority of Christ, the apostles, and the Church’s worship?