Hi, I'm David Bercot, and today we're going to be talking about why don't we use the same Bible as the apostles? Now, that question might sound strange to you. You may well be thinking, I thought we are using the same Bible as the apostles. Well, I hate to tell you, but actually we aren't. Let me explain. First, when I say we're not using the same Bible, I'm talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament, of course, was in the process of being written during the lives of the apostles.
Secondly, I don't mean that the apostles had some entirely different Old Testament than we do. I mean that they used a different Old Testament text. Actually, in the vast majority of Old Testament verses, the text we use and the text they used read almost identically. So the differences aren't so huge that we're in two different realms or something like that. Their text and ours have the same basic teachings and they contain the same people and the same historic events.
Yet there are differences between these texts, and some of these differences aren't quite significant. So this isn't some light matter that we don't need to think about. Well, before we delve into the discussion, let me give you a brief overview of what I'll be discussing in both today's message and tomorrow's as well. First, we're going to be talking about the different families of Old Testament manuscripts. Secondly, we're going to look at which of these text families the apostles used.
Also, we'll be looking at which one did Jesus use. Third, we're going to be looking at which Bible the early Christians used. All right, after that, then we're going to be talking about how did things change and when did they change? Then we're going to be looking at the significance of the Old Testament version the apostles used, including what we're missing by not using it.
Finally, at the end, we're going to look at what light the Dead Sea Scrolls have shed on this whole matter of the Old Testament text families. So let's begin by talking about the textual families of the Old Testament. There are actually three of them. Now all three have the same basic message, as I said before, the same teachings, the same events, the same biblical persons. But there are variations between all three of them.
Now, most scholars believe that the oldest of these three text families is the one known as the Proto Septua Gentle Family. Now we don't possess a complete Hebrew text of this family, but we do have various Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts and some very ancient ones that do fall into this family group. However, this text family has been primarily preserved in the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which was begun about the year 250, several centuries before Christ.
Now I refer to it as the Proto Septua gentle family. The prefix proto means what came before or what came ahead of something else. As I said, the Septuagint was translated around the year 250, or at least that's when it began. So by the phrase" protocept to a general," I'm referring to the Hebrew text that those translators had before them in the year 250, and the ones in that same family line that preceded the text that they had.
But to make it easier, hereafter in the discussion, I'm going to be referring to the Proto Septuaginal family simply as the Septuagint or as the Septuagintal family. But you need to remember that there was a line of Hebrew texts that led up to the final Hebrew text that the Septuagint was made from. All right, the second text family of the Old Testament is the Proto-Masoretic text. And again, by Proto we mean the family of texts that preceded the eventual Masoretic text.
Now this is the text type that became the predominant Old Testament text used by Jews in Palestine during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and eventually by Jews everywhere in the world. It was the family that gave rise to the medieval Jewish Masoretic text. Now it's the text family that nearly all English translations are based on, including the King James Version.
Now, throughout this discussion, I'll normally be referring to this family of texts as the Masoretic Text, but you have to remember there was a line of manuscripts that led up to the Masoretic text in its final form. The Masoretic text itself is a medieval Jewish text. It's not something that dated back to the time of Christ or earlier, but it was based on a family of texts that were in existence before Jesus was born.
Now the third text family won't really enter into our discussion today because it's of rather narrow scope. And it's the text family that served as the basis for the Samaritan Pentateuch. This was the Old Testament used by the Samaritans at the time of Christ. However, since it's limited to the first five books of the Bible, and as I said, it was used only by the Samaritans, its value is quite limited in our discussion today.
Its primary worth is the light that it sheds on the other two text families that we've just talked about. Now you've no doubt noticed I've been using the phrase" text families." The reason is we're not talking about merely three different Old Testament manuscripts. What we're saying is out of the very many Old Testament manuscripts that exist, they can be classified into three main groups: the Septuaginal, the Masoretic, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. But within those family groups, there are variations.
In other words, the manuscripts that fall within this Septuaginal group, they don't all read exactly alike, or they don't necessarily read exactly as the Septuagint read during the first century. And the same is true with the family of texts within the Masoretic group, etc. In fact, quite a number of ancient manuscripts don't neatly fit into any one of these three text families. That is, part of the manuscript seems to fit the Masoretic, but then another part seems to fit the Septuagintal.
And occasionally seems to better fit the Samaritan Pentateuch. So these divisions aren't quite as nice and neat as we would like them. Some of the ancient manuscripts seem to flow between them. Of course, the big question is, which one of these texts did the apostles use in their preaching? Which one did they quote from in their New Testament writings? Well, the answer is about 90% of the time they quoted from the Septuagint. In fact, I think it's likely that they quoted from it 100% of the time.
But the reason I say 90% is because about 10% of their quotations don't fit any of these Septuaginal texts that we have in existence today. Now I think it's likely it fit the Septuagint of the first century, or at least one of the versions of the Septuagint that was in circulation at that time. Remember I said there are variations within each of these textual families. Not every manuscript of the Septuagint reads exactly a line, just as every manuscript of the protomasoretic family reads exactly a like.
Also, I should explain that when I say the apostles quoted from the Septuagint 90% of the time, I mean that their quotations either fit it exactly or at least they fit the general sense of it. But you should be aware that oftentimes the apostles are simply paraphrasing an Old Testament passage. Just like Bible teachers today often do when they're speaking or writing. The main difference is that ancient Greek didn't have quotation marks like we have today.
So today it's a little bit more obvious if I'm writing a book and I quote from the Old Testament. If I put quotation marks, you know that that's an exact quotation. If I don't put quotation marks or maybe if I use single ones, then that's alerting you that I'm paraphrasing or alluding to it, but I'm not intending that to be a verbatim quotation.
But the apostles didn't have that option, so it's a little harder to know if this was intending to be an exact quotation or if they were intending only to paraphrase something in the Old Testament. Now, as I've stated, the apostles took their quotations primarily from the Septuagint, and my own calculations point to about 90% of them are from the Septuagint. Now let me read to you from several biblical reference works what they say about this same question, which Bible text did the apostles use?
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. It says this, after describing the use of the Septuagint by Philo and Josephus in their writings, it says," Then came what was probably the most momentous event for the Septuagint. It was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church." The Septuagint was THE Bible for most writers of the New Testament.
Not only did they take from it most of their express citations of Scripture, but their writings, in particular the Gospels, and among them especially Luke, contain numerous reminiscences of its language. The Zandervin Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says this about the Septuagint. It was the Bible for the diaspora, that was the Jews in the dispersion, and as such, it became the Bible of the Church. This is evident when the quotations from the Old Testament, which abound throughout the New, are examined.
From the work The Grammar of the Septuagint Greek, we are familiar with the constant appeal made by the writers of the New Testament to Scripture, an appeal couched in such words as" It is written," or as the Scripture sayeth. In the great majority of cases, the Scripture thus appealed to is undoubtedly the Septuagint. Seldom, if ever, is it the Hebrew?
The work Backgrounds of Early Christianity by the early Christian scholar Everett Ferguson says this:" Most of the New Testament citations of the Old Testament follow the Septuagint." The Bible of the early Church, except for some Jewish believers and a few scholars, was the Greek Old Testament. The Septuagint was the most important literary event, perhaps the most important single development of any kind in the Hellenistic period for the background of early Christianity.
Finally, I read to you from the work, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. It says," It may at once be said that every part of the New Testament affords evidence of a knowledge of the Septuagint, and that a great majority of the passages cited from the Old Testament are in general agreement with the Greek version." Now, one of the points I've tried to get across in my books and recordings is never rely upon secondary sources.
In fact, it's rare that you'll hear me in one of my recordings quote from a secondary source like I've just done. Just because a Bible commentary or a Bible encyclopedia says something doesn't mean that it's necessarily true. The only reason that I've just quoted from those works that I've read to you is to simply let you know that what I'm about to share with you isn't some new discovery. This isn't something unique to David Bercot. It's all what the scholarly world already knows.
But they don't do anything about it. They still follow man-made tradition and they go right back to the Masoretic text even after acknowledging that what the apostles used was the Septuagint. In fact, not a single one of the sources that I just read to you from advocate that we use the same Old Testament as the apostles did. In fact, some of those sources that I just read are actually quite hostile to the Septuagint and they write about it very disparagingly.
So on one hand, they acknowledge that it was the Bible of the apostles. But then on the other hand, they criticize it and say we should go to the Masoretic text instead of using it. But again, as I said, we don't want to rely on what secondary sources say. We want to go to the primary source and get our information straight from the horse's mouth. Well, and in this case, that's the Bible.
It's actually a fairly easy matter to take a quotation from the New Testament and then look to see whether the apostles are quoting from the Masoretic text or from the Septuagint. Now it involves a bit of time, but it is something that anyone can do, assuming they know how to read, and then the two tools they'll need will be a copy of the Septuagint, of course, and a copy of the Masoretic Text.
But if you're using the King James Bible or the New King James, the Old Testament is nearly always following the Masoretic Text. You can use that as your source for the Masoretic Text, and then like I said, you'll need to get a copy of the Septuagint to be able to make the comparison yourself. So that's what we're going to be doing. We'll go to the New Testament and look at a quotation there that's taken from the Old Testament, and then check to see which text family it's from, the Masoretic or the Septuagint.
Now my Bible puts all New Testament quotations from the Old Testament in italics and then sets them apart from the rest of the text. So that makes it very easy to spot a quotation from the Old Testament. And then in the margin, it states where that quotation can be found in the Old Testament. So this was a fairly easy thing for me to do, and probably for most of you, your Bibles are similar. Now I'm gonna start with the book of Hebrews. Now the reason I'm starting with it has a little story behind it.
Last spring I was preaching a message in the church where I belong from the book of Hebrews. And the subject of the message was the various Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. And I wanted to read the New Testament quote and then take the congregation to their Old Testaments to be able to see it there. Now in our church, nearly everyone uses either the King James or the New King James. And I found that quote after quote after quote.
When I would look it up in the Old Testament, it didn't read at all like it did in the New Testament. In fact, some of the quotations weren't even there, period. Because the writer of Hebrews was quoting from the Septuagint. And it was actually that event that led to this series of messages that I'm doing on the Septuagint.
So beginning with the first chapter of Hebrews, Hebrews 1: 6, it reads," And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him." Now, my Bible shows that that's a quotation from Deuteronomy 32:43. All right, you turn in the King James, or I also have a copy of the Masoretic text translated into English. Either one reads the same.
It says in Deuteronomy 32:43," Rejoice OU nations with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants." Well that doesn't say anything about and let all the angels of God worship him. It's not even there. It's not in the next verse or any verse around it. But in the Septuagint, this is what it says," Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice you Gentiles with His people." So the writer there was quoting from the Old Testament.
He assumes his readers had the same Old Testament he did, and that appears there in Deuteronomy 32:43. He was obviously quoting from the Septuagint. That passage isn't even found in the Masoretic. Hebrews 10, verse 5. It says," Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saeth, sacrifice an offering thou would it's not, but a body has thou prepared for me." Okay, that's a quote from Psalm 40:6. Which reads in our Old Testament," Sacrifice an offering thou did it not desire. Mine ears has thou opened.
Burnt offerings and sin offerings has thou not required." Now you probably noticed, wait a minute, in our Old Testament, it doesn't say anything about," But a body has thou prepared for me." And that's an important omission, because the significance of the incarnation is wrapped up in that prophecy that God would prepare a body for His Son to come to earth as a man. Instead, our Old Testament says" Mine ears has thou opened." Which the writer of Hebrew never even quotes from. That doesn't appear in his Bible.
Again, I looked it up in the Septuagint and the Septuagint says," Sacrifice an offering thou would it's not, but a body has thou prepared me." Reads just like the New Testament does in Hebrews. Hebrews 11:21. This isn't a quotation, this is a reference to the Old Testament.
It says this," By faith, Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff." Okay, then the marginal note gives the reference there to Genesis 47:31, not as a quotation, but as a reference to where that's found. So I turned to Genesis 47:31, and there I found, and he said," Swear unto me, and he swore unto him, and Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head." But Hebrew says he worshipped leaning upon the top of his staff.
So the New Testament says that Jacob, when he worshipped, he was leaning upon his staff. Our Old Testament says no, he was leaning upon the headboard of his bed. But the Septuagint says, and he said," Swear to me," and he swore to him. And Israel, that's Jacob, did reverence leaning on the top of his staff. So obviously the writer of Hebrews had in mind the Septuagint, and he assumed his readers all were reading the Septuagint, or else he would be quoting something that they wouldn't know what he was talking about.
I'll give one more example from the book of Hebrews, and we'll move to some of the other books of the New Testament. Hebrews 13:6. The writer says," So that we may boldly say," The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Well that's a quotation from Psalm 118 verse 6. But in our Bibles it says," The Lord is on my side. I will not fear. What can man do unto me?" Well it's a similar thought, but it's not the way the writer of Hebrews quotes it.
But the Septuagint says," The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do to me." So again, he's quoting from the Septuagint," That was the Bible of the writer of the book of Hebrews, who tradition is generally put as Paul. Perhaps it was Luke. We don't know. The book doesn't state. But let's look at the quotations from Paul. What book did he quote from in the letters that we know that he wrote? Well, Romans 2:24.
He says," For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you as it is written." Now he's talking about the disobedient Jews, and he's saying that God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of what they did. But in our Old Testament, it just simply says this in Isaiah 52:5," My name is continually everyday blasphemed." Doesn't tie it to the Jews or anything else.
But in the Septuagint it says this:" On account of you, my name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles." It's not verbatim the way Paul quoted it, and again, I don't know if he was paraphrasing or quoting an exact text in front of him, but it's the exact same meaning that on account of you unfaithful Jews, that God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles. The Masoretic text leaves off the Gentiles and it leaves off who was the cause of it, and ends up with a significantly different meaning.
Romans 9:27, he says," Isaiah also cryeth out concerning Israel. Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." Important prophecy about the salvation of a remnant of the Jews. But in our Old Testament it says," Though thy people Israel be like the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them will return." Nothing about salvation. Just a remnant would return to the promised land. But that's not what it says in the Septuagint.
The Septuagint says," Though the people of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be saved," just like Paul quoted it. Another one from Romans, Romans 15:12. He writes, and again Isaiah says," There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the nations. In him shall the nations trust." Well, the Masoretic says," There shall be a root of Jesse who shall stand for an end sign or a sign of the peoples.
To him shall the nation seek." Difference between trusting in him and seeking him.
But the Septuagint renders it just like Paul quoted," There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to rule over the Gentiles or nations," it's the same Greek word," in him shall the nations trust." Another one that has prophetic significance about the cross, Galatians 3:13 says," For it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But if you look that up in your Old Testament, Deuteronomy 21:23, what it says is," He who is hanged is accursed by God." Nothing about hanged on a tree.
But the Septuagint says," Everyone that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God." So it's obvious the Bible Paul was using was the Septuagint, and he assumes his readers are using that, or he wouldn't be quoting from it. He would be throwing them for a loop. I mean, he commended the Bereans for going to the Scriptures and checking to see if what he said was true. But if his readers were using the Proto-Masoretic text, they would check and say," No, it's not in there.
It's not like what Paul is saying." So it's obvious to me that both Paul was using the Septuagint and so were his readers and the people that he preached to. You might say, well, okay, Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. And I think every scholar acknowledges that in the Gentile world in the diaspora, that the Hellenic Jews and the Gentiles, they would have all used the Septuagint. That was their Bible. But what about Peter? His ministry was primarily to the circumcised, to the Jews.
Yet when we read his letters, we see he also quotes from the Septuagint. 1 Peter 2:22, talking about Jesus, it said," Who did no sin, neither was Gile found in his mouth." Now again, I don't know if he's paraphrasing or giving in an exact quotation, but if you look it up in your Old Testament, you will find in Isaiah 53:9, where he's quoting from, it says," And he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth." Now there is a huge difference between doing no violence and doing no sin.
I mean, a lot of people have done no violence, but nobody can say they did no sin except one man, Jesus Christ. Well the Septuagint renders it. He practiced no iniquity, a synonym for sin, nor craft or guile was in his mouth. So Peter is obviously quoting or paraphrasing from the Septuagint, for it alone carries that significance that there would be no iniquity, no sin found in Jesus Christ. Without the Septuagint, a very important messianic prophecy is suddenly thrown out.
1 Peter 4:18, he says," If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" That's a quote from Proverbs 11:31. But in our Bibles it says," Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed on the earth, much more the wicked and the center." Now recompense means to reward. The righteous will be rewarded, so will the wicked in the center. Now that something good would come to the wicked in the center, but they would get their just desserts.
It doesn't say anything about being saved, either the righteous or the wicked, but in the Septuagint it says," If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" So Peter, who had a ministry especially to the Jews, quotes from the Septuagint as well, it was the Bible that he knew. Let's move on to some of the other New Testament writers, Matthew. Matthew 3:3 says," For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying," The voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Make his past straight." Incidentally, if you're listening to this recording at home or in a place where you can get out your Bible and look up these passages with me, I really encourage you to do that. The impact is so much stronger when you can see it with your own eyes opening your Bible to these passages. That was Matthew 3:3 that mentions the prophecy of Isaiah of preparing the way of the Lord, make his path straight.
But if you look up Isaiah 40:3 in our Bibles, it says," The voice of Him that crieth in the wilderness. Prepare you the way of the Lord. Make straight in the desert a highway for our God." You see in Matthew's quotation, there's no mention of making straight in the desert a highway, but there is in the Masoretic text.
And incidentally, even though I'm using the King James as an illustration, this works essentially the same way whether you're using the New International, the New American Standard, or any other Bibles around today, because they're all based on the Masoretic texts for their Old Testament. Now occasionally in the newer translations, they'll switch over and use the Septuagint here and there where they like its rendition better than that of the Masoretic text.
But overall, they use the Masoretic text for their Old Testament. Now that same Isaiah chapter 40:3 in the Septuagint reads," The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare you the way of the Lord. Make straight the paths of our God." Another passage from Matthew, Matthew 12, verses 20 and 21. It says," A bruised reed shall not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth justice unto victory.
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Now that's a quote from Isaiah chapter 42, verses 3 and 4. And if you look that up in your Bible, it says this:" A bruise read he will not break, and smoking flax he will not quench. He will bring forth justice for truth, and the coastlands shall wait for his law." Nothing there about the Gentiles trusting in him just says the coastlands, which could just as easily be the Israelite coastlands, will wait for his law.
But again, the Septuagint says," A bruise read he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench. But he shall bring forth judgment to truth, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Just like Matthew quoted it. Let me pull one now from James, who was there in Jerusalem, a Jew among Jews. Where he quotes from the Old Testament, James 4:6, we read," Wherefore he saith, God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble." That's from the Proverbs. Proverbs 3:34.
And again, when we turn in our Bibles to Proverbs 3:34, it says," Surely he scoffeth at the scoffers, but he giveth grace unto the lowly." Nothing about resisting the proud. But in the Septuagint, Proverbs 3: 34 reads," The Lord resists the proud, but he gives grace to the humble." So even James, living there in Jerusalem, quotes from the Septuagint.
Now I don't want to give you the impression that if you just pick a quotation at random from the New Testament, that it will never read like the same passage reads in your Old Testament. Because that's not the case at all. As I said at the beginning, most verses of the Old Testament read exactly the same in both the Masoretic and in the Septuagint. God did not allow any of these text families to become so corrupt that a person couldn't find the true God there.
So when I say that about 90% of the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Septuagint, that doesn't mean by default that only 10% agree with the Masoretic text, because about half of the quotations in the New Testament agree with both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text, because they are essentially the same. But even in those situations, the New Testament writers are obviously quoting from the Septuagint. Now this is only evident when you're looking at the Greek.
In our English Bibles, both the Greek and the Hebrew have been translated into English. And the translators make their translation of the New Testament Greek quotations fit exactly their translation of the Hebrew of the equivalent passage in the Old Testament. And this is certainly reasonable and fair, where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text agree. I have no problem with that.
But you have to understand that when the apostles readers, when their Greek readers were reading the New Testament writings, and they came across an Old Testament quote, they were seeing the exact same Greek words in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament Apostles' writings. Because there wasn't a Greek version of the Masoretic text during the first century.
So the New Testament writers weren't taking their quote from a Greek version of the Masoretic Text, which didn't exist, nor were they even taking the Masoretic text and then doing their own translation into Greek. Rather, they were quoting the Greek directly from the Septuagint. After all, we don't even know if most of the New Testament writers could read Hebrew. By their day, Hebrew was a fairly dead language, being preserved primarily in the Hebrew Old Testament and in liturgical language.
The scribes, of course, knew Hebrew, and I'm sure the Sadducees, the High Priest did, and maybe many of the Pharisees, I don't know. But fishermen like Peter and John? Well they knew Greek, but it's very unlikely that they would have known Hebrew. In fact, when we read about Hebrew speaking widows in the Book of Acts, it's actually talking about Aramaic speaking widows, not true Hebrew. You see, the Hebrew language had originally been derived from the Aramaic, and so they were related languages.
And so Aramaic was commonly referred to by the Greeks as Hebrew. But they were in fact two different languages. Someone who was fluent in Aramaic would not have been able to understand Hebrew even though they were related. It would be like French and Latin. French was derived from Latin, but somebody who was fluent in Latin would not be able to understand a French person, nor vice versa. Of course, an even bigger question is: Which Bible did Jesus use?
Which Old Testament did He quote from, from the Septuagint, or from the Masoretic Text? Well, let's just read some examples. Matthew 15 verses 7 and 9. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying," This people draw near unto me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?" Now that's a quotation from Isaiah 29:13.
Our Old Testament say this:" This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men." The quote is similar until you get to the end, where he says," In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?" And the Masoretic says," Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men, not even a similar thought." But the Septuagint in Isaiah 29: 13 says," This people draw night
of me with their mouth, and they honor 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?" Just like Jesus quoted from. So even Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. Another example, Matthew 21:16. It says," And Jesus said unto them," Yeah, have you never read, out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast perfected praise?" That's in Psalm 8:2, which in our Bible say," Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings has thou ordained strength." That's what the Masoretic text says. What does the Septuagint say?
Well, it says," Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings has thou perfected praise." So again, which text was Jesus using, the Septuagint or the Masoretic text? It's obvious he's using the Septuagint. And even more importantly, he's quoting this to the Jewish people there of his day in Palestine, which tells me they must have been familiar with the Septuagint as well, or else his quotation would not have made sense to them. They would have thought, well, that's not what the Bible says.
Particularly in some of these passages, he's talking to his enemies, the Pharisees. They would have certainly called his hand on that. So this Heptuagint must have been commonly used there even in Palestine. Now let's look at Luke chapter 4 verses 17 and 18. This is a very significant passage because this is at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, He's in the synagogue there in Galilee, and he's reading from the scroll in the synagogue. And which scroll is it? Which text is he reading? Let's read.
It says, that's again Luke 4:17 and 18. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written." The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." Now that passage is found in Isaiah chapter 61, verse 1.
And it reads fairly similarly between the Masoretic and the Septuagint, but there is one notable difference. In our Old Testaments and in the Masoretic, it says," The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound." Doesn't say anything in there about recovering of the sight to the blind. But how does the Septuagint read?
Isaiah 61: 1 says," The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me. He has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to declare the acceptable year of the Lord and the Day of Recompense. To comfort all that mourn. So the Septuagint mentions the recovery of sight to the blind that isn't in the Masoretic text. So even there in the synagogue, Jesus was reading from the Septuagint.
Now his Septuagint read just a little differently in that passage in the Septuagint version that I've been quoting from. It's very close to being the same. But as I mentioned at the beginning, in all of these families of text, there are slight variations. So the wording here is just a little bit different, but it's got all of the same elements, including recovery of sight to the blind that is entirely missing in the Masoretic text.
Now I mentioned that obviously the Jews in the first century there in Palestine were using the Septuagint, because Jesus quotes from the Septuagint to them. Now we know the Masoretic text was also around as well, but it wasn't necessarily the Bible that the common people were familiar with, or even people like the Pharisees. Let me give you some other examples. John chapter 6:30 and 31.
Now here it's a hostile crowd of Jews speaking to Jesus, and it says," They said therefore unto Him,' What sign showeth thou then that we may see and believe thee? What doeth thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert as it is written. He gave them bread from heaven to eat." So this is the crowd quoting scripture to Jesus.
They're actually quoting from the book of Psalm, Psalm 78:24, which says in the Masoretic text," And had rained down manna upon them to eat and had given them of the grain of heaven." A similar thought, but it's not how they quote it. They quote it as he gave them bread from heaven. Well, the Septuagint says," And rained upon them manna to eat and gave them the bread of heaven." So even the crowd there, they're quoting from the Septuagint in speaking to Jesus. The Ethiopian eunuch.
I think we would guess he would probably be using the Septuagint since he came from a distant land, from Ethiopia. Acts chapter 8 verses 32 and 33. He's there in his chariot reading. It says," The place in the Scripture which he read was this:" In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away. And who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth." He's reading there from the book of Isaiah, Isaiah 53:8. But this is how it reads in the Masoretic and in our Old Testament.
It says," He was taken from prison and from judgment and who shall declare his generation, for he was cut off out of the land of the living." See, what he was reading, it says," In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away." But we're reading in our Bibles he was taken from prison and from judgment. Not quite the same thing. But the Septuagint there in Isaiah 53:8 says," In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away.
Who shall declare his generation for his life is taken away from the earth?" Reads exactly the same way it read to the Ethiopian eunuch. Even more remarkable is when Stephen was before the Sanhedrin, and he gave them this lengthy discussion about God's dealings with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites. And in there in Acts 7:14, it says," Then sent Joseph and called his father Jacob to him and all his kindred three score and 15 souls." A three score and 15 is the old English way of saying 75. A score is 20.
All right, but when you turn to Genesis 46:27, where that information comes from, in our Old Testament, it says," All the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt, were three score in 10." Three score and ten. That's Old English for 70. So our Old Testament says 70, but when he's quoting this to the high court of the Jews, he says 75. That's because he's quoting or making reference to the Septuagint.
The Septuagint in Genesis 46:27 says," All the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt were 75 souls." Now, apparently the High Court there was familiar with the Septuagint. That must have been a Bible that they themselves commonly read, or it would have made no sense that here Stephen is on trial for his life. He's lecturing them. And would he pull out a figure 75 if their Bible said 70? I mean, their immediate response was, well, you don't even know the Scriptures.
There weren't 75, there were only 70. But no, he quotes 75. So that tells me that even among the Jews in the first century, that the Septuagint was the common Bible that they used. We do know the Masoretic text was in existence at that time, but the evidence from the New Testament would indicate that that was not the Bible used by the common people, or even by the Sanhedrin. Well I hope that by now you're able to see that the Septuagint was truly the Bible of the Apostles and the Bible of the First Century Church.
So at this point, I think it would be fitting if I told you a little bit about the history of the Septuagint. The term Septuagint comes from the Latin phrase Septuagint Interpretum Versio, which means the version of the 70 translators. So in most reference works, you'll find that they use the abbreviation LXX, which is 70 in Roman numerals. Now why is it called the translation of the 70? Well the reason is that an ancient letter written by a man named Erystius recounts how this translation came into being.
And it states that there were 72 translators, and 70 is simply a round number for 72. Now, according to Aristeas, who served the Egyptian king Ptolemy II during the 3rd century BC, Ptolemy was assembling the largest library ever in existence. And this is something known to secular historians as well.
And he wanted to include in his library the wisdom of all of the various peoples with whom the Greeks had been in contact, which at that time most of the Near Eastern world was ruled by the Greeks after the conquest of Alexander the Great. And Ptolemy himself was Greek, even though he ruled Egypt, he was a descendant of one of Alexander the Great's generals.
Now having heard about the ancient writing of the Jews, because Egypt and Palestine had a lot of interchange, Ptolemy wanted to include their writings in his library. However, no one in Egypt, including the large Jewish population there, could read Hebrew. So Ptolemy sent emissaries to Jerusalem with gifts, asking the high priest to send copies of the sacred Hebrew writings along with qualified men who could translate them into Greek.
And according to this account, the high priest sent 72 handpicked translators along with Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, which the emissaries then took back to Ptolemy, to Alexandria, Egypt, where he ruled. Now here Ptolemy interviewed these 72 men and was quite impressed by them. And then he sent them to work on their translation. He had built small cabins for them on the island of Pharos, which is in the harbor there at Alexandria.
He felt that this would be a very quiet place where they could work without being distracted by others. Now it's unclear from the letter of Orystius whether the translating done by these men was just the five books of Moses or if it was the entire Old Testament. The reason is that in his letter Erysteus said that Ptolemy had them translate their laws. Now when the Jews referred to the law, they meant the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.
But whether or not Arystius and Ptolemy were using it in that sense isn't clear. I'm inclined to think that it referred to all of the writings of the Old Testament. But regardless whether those translators did the entire Old Testament or not, we do know that eventually the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek there at Alexandria. And the entire work was what was known as the Septuagint, not just the first five books.
Now it's not difficult to see God's hand of providence in his direction in this project because he foreknew that in a few centuries he would be sending his son to the earth and planting his church that he wanted to spread throughout the entire ancient world. Well, to effectively do that, he needed his scriptures to be available in the most widely read language of that day, which was Greek.
And he didn't want to wait until Jesus and the apostles were on the scene to then suddenly try to get the scriptures into Greek, but rather he wanted this Greek translation to be well established in the synagogues throughout the entire world, wherever Jews were located, so that it would be an established work, one that would already be universally accepted by the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers long before Jesus and the apostles came on the scene. And that is exactly what happened.
It was accepted everywhere by the Jews. The two best-known Jewish writers of the first century, Philo and Josephus, both quote extensively from the Septuagint and they both lavish extensive praise upon it. Because the Septuagint truly was an extraordinary work in many ways. As I said, it quickly gained acceptance throughout the entire Jewish world of the dispersion, and it became their Bible.
And the evidence that I've just shown you in the New Testament indicates that it was also widely used and known in Palestine by the Jews who lived there. One of the remarkable things about the Septuagint is that it was the first book that we know of that was written in Greek. This was the non-literary form of Greek spoken by most people on a daily basis. Now every other Greek work we know of of that time was written in classical Greek.
So this was something very new to just write it in common Greek that ordinary people spoke, not in literary Greek. But in using coni Greek for the Septuagint, God established the pattern and the precedent that was then followed by the New Testament writers, which was also written in Kunik Greek as well. So in that regard, the Septuagint and the New Testament stand apart from any other books that had ever been written up to that time.
Now Professor Sweet, who was not a particular fan of the Septuagint even though he studied it in detail, said this about it in his introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. He says," The quotations from the Septuagint by no means represent the extent of the influence exerted upon the New Testament by the Alexandrian version." And by Alexandrian version, he means the Septuagint. The careful student of the gospels and of St.
Paul is made at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament. The Alexandrian version of the Old Testament has left its mark on every part of the New Testament, even in chapters and books where it is not directly cited.
It is not too much to say that in its literary form and expression, the New Testament would have been a widely different book had it been written by authors who knew the Old Testament only in the original or who knew it in a Greek version other than that of the Septuagint. End quote.
The new international Bible encyclopedia that I quoted from earlier says," The theological terms of the New Testament such as law, righteousness, mercy, truth, and propitiation, were taken over directly from the Septuagint and must be understood in the light of their use in that version." Actually, there are even better examples of Christian terms that came directly from the Septuagint and became the language of the New Testament.
I'm talking about words such as grace, church, angel, bishop, and Presbyter are elder. In each of those instances, the New Testament writers used the terms that the translators of the Septuagint had used. And you have to remember, those weren't the only Greek terms that the Septuagint translators could have used. They could have chosen many different terms in a lot of situations.
But they chose those particular terms to be the equivalent of certain Hebrew words, and then that pattern was followed in the New Testament by the apostles. Another example would be the decision to use the Greek word Hades for the Hebrew word sheol, the place of the dead. An even more pronounced pattern that they set was their decision not to use the name Yahweh in their translation, which is the name used in the Hebrew Old Testament for God.
In fact, the name Yahweh appears more in the Old Testament than any other name. It's the most commonly used name. So it would have been natural for them to either come up with a Greek rendition of Yahweh, or to leave it simply as Yahweh, just to transliterate it literally. But they didn't do either one of those things. Instead, they rendered the divine name not by another name, but by a title, Theos or God, or occasionally as Curios or Lord.
Now I fully believe that this was providential because when we get to the New Testament a few centuries later, we find that Jesus and His apostles never use the divine name of the Old Testament. They always refer to God simply as God or Lord. But this was a practice that had first begun in the Septuagint. And I'm sure this was by divine sanction. Well, in summary, of course Jesus and his apostles use the Septuagint as their Bible.
I think the evidence is quite clear that God intended it that way, that He had the translation made to pave the way for Christianity. Now, do we think that God had so little foresight or so little concern for His church that He permitted His church to be founded on a corrupt and unreliable Old Testament text?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire the apostles to write the New Testament using quotations that were actually in error, that when they say Isaiah said this and that, Isaiah really had never said that, but rather that's an erroneous translation made by the 72 translators there? Well, for those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I think there can be only one answer. Of course not.
Of course the Septuagint is the Old Testament that God wanted preserved and used by Christians everywhere, just as it was used in the first century. If there is any doubt in your mind whether or not the Septuagint was the providentially preserved Word of God, the Old Testament that he wanted both the Jews and the Christians to use, I think one particular Messianic prophecy should clinch the matter. In fact, it's perhaps the single most significant Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah.
And that's Isaiah chapter 7:14, which is quoted by Matthew, Matthew 1:22 and 23. He says," Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying," Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Now we all know that prophecy quite well, but did you know that in the Masoretic text, that's not the way it reads. It says," Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign.
Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew wasn't quoting from the Masoretic text, he was quoting from the Septuagint that says a virgin would give birth, which is a central and essential teaching of Christianity. Without the virgin birth, you don't have the incarnate Son of God. You simply have a good man. But as we just saw, the Masoretic text merely says that a young woman will give birth to a son.
Now the Hebrew word that occurs in the Masoretic text is alma. And indeed, alma means a young woman. It can refer to a virgin, but it can also refer to a young, newly married woman. Or it can refer to an unmarried young woman who is not actually a virgin in the biological sense. Now there is a Hebrew word that means virgin in the biological sense, and that word is Bethula. But that's not what the Masoretic text uses. It uses alma, which is best translated young woman.
Now, the one thing we don't know is what word did the translators of the Septuagint have in front of them in the Hebrew text they were using? Was it Alma, which would be properly rendered as young woman, or was it Bethula, which would be properly translated virgin? As I said, we don't know. But what we do know is that whichever word it was, they did render it by the Greek word Parthenos, which means a virgin in the biological sense, not just a young woman. So one of two things happened.
Either the original Hebrew text did have the word Bethula, meaning a biological virgin, and later some Jewish scribes changed the word to Alma in their copies. If this is the case, the change was made before Christ. A scribe might have looked at that and thought," Huh, that doesn't make sense. That should be Alma, not Bethulah." Or the other possibility is that the original Hebrew word was alma.
And by divine providence, the translators of the Septuagint rendered that word by the Greek word Parthenos, meaning a biological virgin. Because as I said, alma can mean that, but it's not the only meaning. But absent divine direction, that would have gone against all logic. A virgin giving birth to a sun? Impossible.
So either the Septuagint preserves how the Hebrew text originally read or the Septuagint renders it as virgin by divine direction, by what was intended by Isaiah, even though he didn't use the precise Hebrew word. And please don't say, well, Isaiah said it would be a sign and a young woman giving birth wouldn't be a sign because it's an everyday occurrence. That doesn't hold up because if you read the entire passage there, there was more to the sign than simply a virgin or a young woman giving birth to a son.
Because it goes on to say," Behold, the virgin, or in the Masoretic text, the young woman, shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." So you have a son being born, the name Emmanuel. It says curds and honey he shall eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. Another part of the sign." For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." Another part of the sign.
So the context does not require that the word be rendered virgin rather than young woman, and it would go against all human sense. Now you may be thinking," Now wait a minute, David, in my Old Testament, it does say virgin, not young woman." That's right. That's because it's such a central prophecy to Christianity that the Bible translators have fudged.
They follow the Masoretic text until they get to that word, then suddenly they switch over to the Septuagint rendering, and then they go back to the Masoretic text again, which to me is very intellectually and spiritually dishonest. Another example of the same thing is Psalm 22:16. Now this is never quoted in the New Testament. But in the Septuagint, it says," For many dogs have encompassed me. The assembly of the wicked doers has beset me around.
They pierced my hands and my feet." Well to a Christian, that is obviously an important Messianic prophecy about the crucifixion. Now when the Psalmist wrote that he of course had no idea of the significance, nor did the various copyists throughout the years, the various scribes. The Masoretic text says," For dogs have encompassed me, a company of evildoers having closed me. Like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." Quite a difference.
Like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet, rather they pierced my hands and my feet. Now if you look that up in your Old Testament, it'll probably say they pierced my hands and my feet. I know the King James says that, because again, it's such an important messianic prophecy that the translators fudge. They switch from the Masoretic and they go to the Septuagint.
But if the Septuagint is a translation full of errors and corruption, how does it suddenly have these miraculous prophecies about the Messiah in it that don't appear in the supposedly more pure Masoretic text? That doesn't make any sense, does it? No, all of the evidence points to the Septuagint as the Old Testament Bible that God provided through His foresight for the founding of Christianity. So why don't we still use it today? Well, that's what we're going to be talking about tomorrow.