Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that the apostles used a different Old Testament “text” (not different books) than most Christians do today; what view of God’s providence and priorities is implied by the claim that God would not found the church on a “corrupt and unreliable” Old Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God would not build His church on a “corrupt and unreliable” Old Testament, what does that say about how you think God protects Scripture and what He cares most about?

The lesson describes three Old Testament “text families” (Septuagintal/proto-Septuagintal, proto-Masoretic, Samaritan Pentateuch) and notes that many manuscripts “flow between” families; how does that messiness challenge modern assumptions that God preserves Scripture only through one perfectly uniform manuscript line? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Old Testament manuscripts come from several “text families” and often mix, how does that challenge the idea that God preserved the Bible through only one perfect, unbroken manuscript line?

Bercot says the apostles quoted the Septuagint about 90% of the time and perhaps 100%, with some quotations not matching any existing Septuagint manuscripts today; what does that claim require you to believe about variation within “the Septuagint” in the first century, and how does it affect the way you think about precision in biblical quotation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the apostles usually quoted the Septuagint, and some quotes don’t match any Septuagint copy we have today, what does that mean about how much the Septuagint varied back then? How should that shape your expectations about exact word-for-word quoting in the Bible?

In Hebrews 1:6, the writer quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 (“Let all the angels of God worship him”), which Bercot says is absent from the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint; what does it mean for your view of Scripture and worship that a command for angels to worship the Son appears in the Bible used by the apostles but not in the Old Testament most Christians read? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does it affect your view of Scripture and worship that Hebrews includes a line about angels worshiping the Son that is in the Septuagint but not in the Old Testament most Christians read?

Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as “a body hast thou prepared for me,” while the Masoretic reads “mine ears hast thou opened”; how does each reading shape your understanding of the incarnation and sacrifice, and what does Bercot’s argument imply about what modern Christians may be “missing” theologically? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does “a body you prepared for me” versus “you opened my ears” change what you think Psalm 40 is saying about Jesus becoming human and dying for us? If Bercot is right, what important idea might modern Christians be missing?

Bercot insists we should verify claims by “primary sources” rather than trusting encyclopedias that admit apostolic reliance on the Septuagint but still default to the Masoretic text; where do you see “man-made tradition” functioning similarly in your own Bible habits, and what would it cost you to actually test these claims by comparison? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where might you be following “man-made tradition” in how you choose and trust Bible texts without checking the evidence? What would it cost you in time, comfort, or assumptions to compare the sources for yourself?

The lesson claims Jesus Himself quoted the Septuagint (Isaiah 29:13 in Matthew 15; Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21; Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4, including “recovery of sight to the blind”); how does the idea that Jesus publicly read and argued from the Septuagint confront modern instincts that the “original Hebrew” must always be the superior or more faithful text? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus quoted and read from the Septuagint in public, how does that challenge the idea that the “original Hebrew” is always the best or most faithful version?

Bercot uses Stephen’s “75 souls” (Acts 7:14 vs. Genesis 46:27) and the hostile crowd’s quotation in John 6:31 to argue the Septuagint was widely known even in Palestine, possibly even among the Sanhedrin; what assumptions about early Jewish/Christian Scripture use does this overturn, and how might it change how you picture the first-century church reading and defending doctrine? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Septuagint was widely known even in Palestine, what common ideas about how Jews and early Christians used Scripture does that overturn? How would it change the way you picture the first church reading the Bible and defending its beliefs?

The lesson highlights how New Testament theological vocabulary (“law,” “righteousness,” “mercy,” “propitiation,” and even “grace,” “church,” “bishop,” “presbyter,” and using “Hades” for “Sheol”) was shaped by Septuagint translation choices; what does this suggest about God’s intention to shape Christian doctrine through translation decisions, and how does that sit with modern evangelical discomfort with “theology built on a translation”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If many New Testament key words and ideas were shaped by the Septuagint’s translation choices, what might that say about God using translations to form Christian teaching? How do you feel about building theology from a translation?

Bercot argues Isaiah 7:14 is decisive: Matthew cites “virgin” (parthenos) from the Septuagint, while the Masoretic reads alma (“young woman”), and he presents two possibilities—scribal change before Christ or providential translation; if the Septuagint wording safeguards “a central and essential teaching of Christianity,” how should that affect which Old Testament text Christians treat as authoritative, and what practical changes (in study, preaching, or Bible buying) would obedience to that conclusion require? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Septuagint’s wording in Isaiah 7:14 (“virgin”) protects a core Christian belief, should Christians treat that Old Testament text as more authoritative? If so, what would you change in your study, preaching, or even which Bible you buy?