Facts about the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament

[vedinthorn]

Let's take stock in what we have so far. Beyond dispute the LXX was a book (or collection of books) known by name no later than the first century AD. It may have been incomplete, but was a Greek translation of many of the OT books known at the time. It is also highly unlikely that the earliest attestation of it is not from at least 150 BC or before. What is, therefore, the most logical conclusion to draw?

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Actually it was known no EARLIER then the late 1st century AD. It was composed by apostate heretical Ebionites and edited by one of the worst heretics in Christian history, Origen, who added the Apocrypha books into it as canonical. The most logical conclusion to draw is that neither the Lord nor the Apostles, would have touched it.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 If you even want to say Philo wrote about it as the author of The Letter of Aristeas, I am baffled by how you can say 'late first century AD' since Philo was dead by AD 50. Ebionites likely didn't exist until 70 AD or very shortly before, so that rules them out as well. I promise no one had a time machine back then, so that means the LXX was at LEAST started VERY early in the first century AD, translated by Jews (who else would bother?) and was apparently used by the apostles.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -What is KNOWN is no earlier then the late 1st century AD. What Philo did or didn't do is still speculation. Even if he wrote the letter of Aristeas, it doesn't mean there was an actual BC LXX. He never actually quotes any Gr. OT. The LXX that we know existed, existed late in the 1st century AD, and was not composed by orthodox Jews, but by apostate ones-Ebionites. So it would NOT have been used by the Apostles.

There were likely Gr. Targums in use, not a LXX.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Got any proof of those assertions?

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -What assertions! The only historical evidence of any LXX is from the late 1st century AD written by three apostate Jews. It is you who are making suppositions and assertions without a shred of any real evidence.

No one knows who wrote the false letter of Aristeas, saying it was Philo is pure speculation.

[edwardpf123]

Yes, you are correct, some of the papryi could be considered a Mss. Most are scraps. I was thinking of the categories of Papyri, Unicals and minuscules.

However, the papyri do contain mixed readings,

'Harry Sturz has shown how frequently the earliest papyri support the kind of distinctive Byz. readings found in the AV. By distinctive Byz. he means readings found in the mass of later Mss. but not supported by Aleph, B, or one or two other early witnesses('Moorman,'-Early Mss and the AV)

[vedinthorn]

All kind of irrelevant when you take into account that the majority of NT quotes of the OT are from the LXX.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Actually, they aren't. When you find a quote matching the CURRENT LXX (created in 3 A.D.), you are looking a work in which Origen (and others) simply copied the LXX to match the NT reading.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 1) I think you mean Theodotion as Origen simply copied his work into the Hexapla 2) Not all of the LXX found in the Hexapla is unique to it. That having been said, your hypothesis is not attested to by most scholars, and it does not explain why the NT writers often quoted phrasing that matched the LXX while simultaneously witnessing AGAINST the MT. To say that Theodotian made his version match the NT is one thing, but proving the source of the NT quotes is another.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Actually, Origen did quite a bit of editing of the other three 1st century LXX's, and that is the work we have today, an AD LXX, NOT BC. And Origen had the NT in front of him when he made those changes. The current LXX is the an edited work of Origen.

And MANY scholars disagree that there was a complete OT in existance BC.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 I never used the word 'complete', though the LXX was a document known by name in the first century AD at the latest. This happened before Origen. If you want to say that Origen is responsible for every part that the NT quotes, go for it, but at least admit there was an LXX before Origen.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -There is no evidence for a BC LXX.

The LXX being used today is not from the BC era, it is from the AD period, from Origen and other's editiing.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 But it's impossible to argue that it isn't from the first century AD. Please agree with this or at least argue against it as opposed to something I'm not even saying. (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY BC)

By the way, there is the letter of Aristeas describing it in the 3rd century BC. Sam Gipp argues that it was written by Philo, which is still impressive since Philo is also in the first century AD. Apparently Philo or Aristeas had time machines.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Never said there wasn't a LXX versions in the 1st century AD(Aquila-an Ebionite-128AD Symmachus( Ebionite) wrote one in 180-180-192AD.

Theodotion wrote one, whiich is suppose to have come from the original LXX 161-181AD (yet another Ebionite)

All of them were done after the NT Canon was closed in 90AD.

Philo (an unsaved neo-Plationist) might have made up the story to defend the myth of a version he never saw.

[ThoriumEnergy]

Did the KJV translators only use the Masoretic Hebrew for the Old Testament, or did they use the Septuagint as well for their translation?

[edwardpf123]

@ThoriumEnergy -The KJB translators did not use the LXX in their translation.

[ThoriumEnergy]

@edwardpf123 Thank you, that helps. Just for clarification, is this an excepted view by all KJV supporters?

[edwardpf123]

@ThoriumEnergy -Yes, I haven't seen any KJB defenders state that the LXX was used in the KJB translation.

The KJB translators praised the LXX, but didn't use it.

[ThoriumEnergy]

@edwardpf123 I am in a discussion at work with a co-worker who says that the Authorized Version is a translation of the Septuagint, not the Masoretic. Is there any proof that I can show him?

[vedinthorn]

@ThoriumEnergy Depends on what you mean by 'use', but in general, though they may have consulted it and called it the 'very Word of God', it was not their source in general.

[vudumojo]

Amen bro. Love your videos!

[edwardpf123]

@vudumojo -Thank you!

[MrOphachew]

Hebrew Culture was absorbed into Greek Culture under Alexander the Great. The KJV originally came with a disclaimer because the translaters had trouble translatiing it. The dead sea scrolls might have a minor historical significance in regard to what was going on in that era, but that it.. Don't be fooled: the Jews didn't even establish their canon until the Apostles went around quoting from the OT. The Jews preserved nothing; at one time Judaism was polythiestic and not monothiestic.

[edwardpf123]

@MrOphachew -Take your anti-Jewish nonsense somewhere else.

[MrOphachew]

@edwardpf123 --Why don't you keep your anti-Greek retoric to yourself?

[edwardpf123]

@MrOphachew -If you compare what the Jews gave to the world and what the Greeks did, there is no comparison. And the Jews are still God's chosen people, who will one day recognize their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords

All nations will bow down to Him and go to Jerusalem to worship Him, including Greece.

[MrOphachew]

@edwardpf123 --If you are Christian? The Jews haven't been the chosen people in 2000 years. The chosen people now are Christians. Hebrew culture was absorbed into greek culture under Alexander the Great. Check it out in your KJV. Jesus IS not only Lord He is the Messiah Compare Isaiah 45:6-7 with John 17:3 etc, etc.

[edwardpf123]

@MrOphachew -This is the last post to you so don't respond. You need to read Rom.11:25:25-29.

Yes, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. And He is the Saviour of the world. Many Jews were corrupted by Greek thinking. But there were Jews who maintained their OT heritage.

[SleepWhenIamDead]

the masoretic is rabidly anti Christian, that is why it was done to eliminate early Christian arguments....the jews just eliminated words....the KJV is not divinely inspired, it is just a beautiful worded translation, like Shakespeare, a superior translation, mind you...but the original KJV required the deuterocanonical books to be printed with it...

[edwardpf123]

@SleepWhenIamDead -There is nothing antiChristian about the MT-it points to the coming Messiah. And it is the text from which the KJB was translated from. The KJB is scripture, and therefore 'given by Inspiration' that is, it is 'quick and powerful'. The 'original KJB' had the Apocrypha books between the testaments as being not part of the Canon and therefore, not scripture.

[SleepWhenIamDead]

@edwardpf123 I am confused, the MT was done after the Temple was already destroyed right, so Christ had already came...the early Christians were using the LXX in their arguments for Christ being the Messiah, so the Jews just came up with the MT to eliminate their arguments, the KJV is not inspired like the Bible it is just a translation, although a superior one, and while the DC is not part of the Canon Constantine and the Orthodox Bishops chose per se, it is still worthy and should be read...

[edwardpf123]

@SleepWhenIamDead -The early Christians were not using any LXX, which is corrupt. The current LXX in use was a product of the 3rd century AD editing by Origen. The MT is the text of the OT which was carefully preserved by the Jews as was witnessed by the recent finding of the 1st century Mss of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls which matched the MT. The KJB is a perfect translation of the pure MT/TR texts. There may be some portions of the Apocrypha that have historical value-that is all.

[mishakol129]

@edwardpf123 The LXX (Septuagint) translation is in fact, the translation which most of the NT writers use when they quote the Old Testament.

The Septuagint was translated in 200 B.C by 70 scholars in Alexandria, by the command of the Emperor.

The oldest living, and complete translation of the Old Testament Bible is in fact, a translation of the Septuagint Bible.

The oldest Hebrew OT Bible is the Leningrad codex (1009 AD)

The oldest Greek Septuagint OT Bible is the Sinai Codex (4th Century AD)

[edwardpf123]

@mishakol129 -Actually no NT writer used the LXX, it wasn't in existance. When does find writings that seem to match it is because Origen had the NT in front of him and simply copied it back into the LXX exactly. So, you admit that the oldest LXX is 4th century AD. There are only a few scraps of any BC Gr. OT, these from the Torah, more likely from Targums, not a LXX. The Hebrew OT has been verfied by the Dead Sea Scrolls when a copy of Isaiah from the 1st century AD matched the 10th century.

[777jordan]

I sort of believed you until you said you are kjv-only :(

[edwardpf123]

@777jordan -Well, that is your problem not mine.

[777jordan]

@edwardpf123 no, not really. You quote scholars and then throw out textual criticism.

[edwardpf123]

@777jordan - I will quote scholars when they are correct.

'And it was only to be expected that as the philosophy of the period had in Gnosticism already simulated to some extent the form of Christianity, so it would now pursue a second course of action, and would in the next endeavour to modify the Faith from within the Church. Such is the probable account of the rise of Origenism (Miller, A Guide to the Textual History of the New Testament, p.78)

[sailing19100]

I compared the LXX greek in Isa. 29:14 to the greek in what appears to be Paul's quote of it in 1 Cor 1:19. Each word in the sentence is identical, except for the last word. Can someone more studied in this suggest how this could be if Paul was not quoting from the LXX? My own logic says that if the LXX was not quoted by Pau, then the NT texts in greek were doctored to imply the validity of the LXX, to make it appear as if Paul had so quoted. Thanks in advance.

[edwardpf123]

@sailing19100 -If it does match 1Cor.1:19 exactly, Origen simply

copied back into Isa. from the copy of Cor. he had in front of him.

There is no evidence of a complete BC LXX. The LXX used today

is from Origen, not any BC copy.

[tastybrain]

does it really matter which magic text we consult?

[edwardpf123]

@tastybrain -It matters that you use the Book that God wants us to use, the one that He gave us, the KJB

[tastybrain]

@edwardpf123 That's why he sent YOU to tell us, right?

[RainhadoCanto4]

@tastybrain

INDEED!! PRAISE GOD FOR THE LIKES OF edwardpf123, whose studious existence he puts to constructive use, instructing those who otherwise would be lost, such as I, and unlike some who sit back and scoff, given their ignorance to be such, they not know to argue any valid points!!

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Quite fitting, isn't it?

[edwardpf123]

@RainhadoCanto4 -Thank you for that very kind comment!

[charis128]

An example of how the Masoretic texts were changed to point away from Christ as the Messiah:

Psalm 22:17 (22:16 NIV) - "they have pierced my hands and my feet." (Septuagint)

Hebrew Masoretic Text - "like a lion my hands and my feet."

Your author there is trying to defend Martin Luther's use of the Masoretic texts to remove the 7 books and change other verses to match his philosophy.

[edwardpf123]

The text used by the KJB translators was from Jewish Christian, Jacob ben Chayim and is translated correctly in the KJB. There is no reason to appeal to either the MT or the LXX.

And the Apocrypha Books are not part of the OT Canon.

[charis128]

@edwardpf123 ...But Chayim used the Masoretic texts, yes? Those are the texts in question. If they were changed at the council of Jamnia, a correct translation into English doesn't make them right.

[edwardpf123]

No, the Ben Chayim used the correct Masoretic text and that is why the translation is correct in the KJB.

If the English translated them correctly, how did they do so? They used the same Hebrew but saw the correct context.

The Rabbi's changed the vowel points to come up with their false meaning.

[777jordan]

@edwardpf123 there is no "Masoretic Text" there is a Masoretic textual tradition with thousands of variants, pick up a BHS.

[edwardpf123]

@777jordan -Ofcourse there is a Masoretic text. When the book of Isaiah was found in the dead sea scrolls, it only differed from the MT in a few minor places.

The BHS is a critical text that uses the corrupt Lenigrad manuscript.

[charis128]

The Masoretic texts came out of the council of Jamnia (90 - 110 AD). This was approx. 70 years after the fall of the temple. There was extreme hatred for the one million Jews who had converted to Christianity and did not help with the war that resulted in the loss of the Temple. They put a curse in their prayers towards these Christians and changed their texts so that they no longer referred to Christ as the Messiah, but two other men.

[edwardpf123]

The Masoretic text that was used by the Christian church had the correct readings in it.

[charis128]

The Septuagint (translation into Greek from 300 BC to 132 BC) is the oldest of several ancient traditions. The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times: Philo and Josephus "ascribed divine inspiration to its authors." The LXX is quoted in the New Testament. Of 350 verses in the NT, 300 are from the Septuagint. It was also used by Rabbi Gamaliel - considered the greatest of doctors of Hebrew law in the 1st C (he taught Paul).

[edwardpf123]

The LXX we have today is from Origen

(3rd century AD) There are no NT passages from the LXX, since it didn't exist in the 1st century.

And even by pro-LXX scholars, it is considered a very poor translation of the Hebrew in most books.

[jstagzsr]

i am a christian. i read the nkjv. so does many christians i know. including my mother who has been a devout christian since before i was even born (i'm 23).

so the septuagint is NOT what i should read???

i heard about this septuagint about an hour ago while watching the special features of "the devinci code deception".

i emailed my pastor to get his take on this septuagint.

is it a tool used for confusing christians??

[edwardpf123]

First, you need to stop reading the NKJV, it has corrupt readings in it.

Second the LXX is admitted to be, even by its defenders, a very poor translation of the Hebrew in many areas.

Third, the LXX read today is from the 3rd century A.D. and is not from the B.C. period. The LXX was never used by Christ or the Apostles.

So, I wouldn't waste any time with it.

The only Bible you need is the KJB.

[ProphetDavidicus]

The septuigint's deuterocanonical books are wrong ,

but remember EVERY bible these days has sep influence.

[edwardpf123]

Not the KJB.

[ProphetDavidicus]

The king james isn't the most correct either

[ProphetDavidicus]

From what Ive read

[edwardpf123]

The KJB translation is perfect.

[ProphetDavidicus]

Ok whatever...

[edwardpf123]

Yea, whatever.

[edwardpf123]

bout forty percent of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic. Further, the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique to Qumran also resembles the later Masoretic Text.[11] These texts account for twenty-five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Therefore, among the Biblical books of Dead Sea Scrolls, sixty-five percent reflect the Traditional Text of the Old Testament.

(Holland)

[ProphetDavidicus]

You ever heard of the nash papyrus?

that follows a more sep influence look it up

[boondox00]

The Dead Sea scrolls don't always follow the Masoretic text. Only the Isaiah scroll and the book of Daniel follow the Masoretic over the LXX, in most other places, the DEAd sea Scrolls follow the LXX family of texts when the 2 differ. Also it should be known, that the Deadsea scrolls sometimes go it's own way against both the LXX family and Masoretic family.

And this is also a fact!

[edwardpf123]

I didn't say that they did, I said the copy of Isaiah they had matched the 10th century copy.

... the evidence from Qumran demonstrates the Traditional Hebrew Text existed long before the Middle Ages, once again establishing the Biblical principle of preservation

(Holland)

[boondox00]

Plus, the idea that only the first 5 books were translated in the BC era is nothing more than speculation based on the word "law" in the letter of Aristees. We know that the word "law" isn't always exclusive to the first 5 books alone. Jesus makes reference to the word "law" when talking about Psalms or proverbs, The same is true with the arabs when talking about the word "law" in regards to Jewish writing.

Most of the quotes of the OT as found in the NT are from the LXX family of texts, FACT!

[edwardpf123]

You keep stating assertions are 'facts'

You haven't supplied a single fact yet.

It is even known if even the first five books were translated into Greek in the BC no less the entire Old Testament.

And NONE of the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, and that IS a fact.

[boondox00]

The LXX family of texts did exist in the B.C. era. Some were found in the Qumran caves (deadsea scrolls)

If you are going to say such nonsense about the lxx, then you gotta say that the Masoretic didn't exist in the b.c. era either, for the Masoretic is a midevil text, about 1,000 years after the birth of Christ.

ICXC NIKA

[edwardpf123]

No, nothing found in the dead sea scrolls showed a B.C. LXX.

As for the Mt the one thing that the discovery of the deadsea scrolls did do is show how accurate the MT was, the 1st century A.D. copy being virtually identical to the 10th MT.

Now, the problem with the LXX is that it is based on a lie, and even when the LXX is talked about, what is being refered to is only the Torah, not the entire OT.

The LXX we have today is not a B.C. it is 3rd century A.D.

[boondox00]

There are alot of scholars like Bart Ehrman that will say alot of negative and false things about the books you only believe in, but that doesn't mean that what he and others say is correct.

And yes, some LXX were found in the dead sea, which predates what you said about non existing before the 4th or 3rd century.

Also many pre-4th/3rd century church fathers, nonbelieving Jews, and the New Testament itself quotes the LXX family of texts, and they quote more than just the first 5 books.

[DefendingChristJesus]

1948 Lie, is such heresy, even Catholics probably reject it... People are trying to make whats going on fit the End times so bad..... WHy? Why not just follow what God means behind his word... ?

[bibliosca]

there was a septuagint done by the 72 and Jesus quoted from it as did the apostles .if we compare luke ch 2 open the eyes of the blind, heal the broken hearted etc.if we compare this text to the old testament where it was quoted from, we can see the phrase ` open the eyes of the blind is left out`.but the word of God is not lost, since it is there in the old testament .

[edwardpf123]

No, there was no LXX done in the B.C. era that we have today. And that story of 72 coming together to translate one has been long exposed as a myth.

Many OT quotes in the NT are slightly altered. Since the Holy Spirit is the author He has the right to do so.

And the LXX doesn't contain the words,

'to set at liberty them that are bruised'

which the Hebrew does have. (opening of the prison to them that are bound).

The words of God aren't lost, they are found in the KJB.

[DefendingChristJesus]

Hey Edward is not seeking righteousness, he is seeking the acceptance of men.....

He wants to fit into the Prostant Cult Lies.... Instead of the Christ.....

Did you see Some of his other videos, he actually believes the Jewish return in Isreal, is Biblical.... LOL... No not even close... Showing his ignorance of the scriptures, and the understanding of context of the scriptures...

Proverbs 1v20-27 He forgot to read and understand and seek righteousness....

[edwardpf123]

The Jewish return to Israel isn't Biblical?

Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people... The FIRST return was 70years after the Babyonian Captivity and the Second time was in 1948.

[DefendingChristJesus]

Thats not what that verse was even talking about... But even if you wanted to twist it to mean that.. It still doesnt fit your lies... ok 1st Captiviy was Assryia, 630Bc, The Second Persia around 550 BC, the 3rd Greece, Then Ephiphanes in Makkebean Era.. And In between that was Egypt here and there... So obviously the jEws have gone back and forth from captivity over and over again... Nothing to do with 1948.. And if you read the Bible in context it was clearly talking about Assryian..

[edwardpf123]

The verse is speaking of the number of RETURNS to the Land by the Jews, of which there were TWO.

Once, after the Babylonian captivity, (Esau and Nehemiah) after which they were dispersed again by the Romans.

The second RETURN was in 1948

So, learn to read simple english.

[jjpetkusiii]

Your Text Comment is utter poppycock on every level, wjm7259. First of all, King James VI of Scotland and I of England was a serious Bible scholar--unlike you. Beyond that, he did not "authorize' the King James Bible as a matter of historical fact.

Renowned in both his realms for his wisdom, godliness, and love of the Scriptures during his lifetime, James was the father of eight children by his wife, Anne of Denmark, to whom he wrote love poetry. His faithful marital devotion was well known.

[kjvonly01]

Thanks Edward.

All this B.C. LXX hype, is total bunk bro. Oregin's 5th column, was a real smoke screen slipped in by the Devil.

He just added more confusion into this Satanic web of lies.

[edwardpf123]

Amen brother! The LXX is just another excuse to deny the preserved Masoretic text and its perfect translation found in the KJB. And it is found in the two corrupt Unicals, 'B' and 'Aleph' along with the Apocrypha, which was never part of any Jewish Canon.

Thank you for your comment.

[wjm7259]

the jewish CANON WAS NOT FIXED UNTIL THE 2ND CENTURY & THE SEPTUAGINT WAS USED BYA JEWS INCUDING THE APOSTLES AND CHRIST AS JESUS QUOTES FROM IT. MORE THAN 60% OF ALL OD TESTAMINT QUOTES FOUND IN THE NEW COME FROM THE GREEK NOT THE HEBREW. THE LXX WAS THE OLD TESTAMENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH NOT THE HEBREW. THE OLDSET MASORETIC TEXTS DATE ONLY FROM THE 10TH CENTURY. iF GOD HAD WANTED BIBLE TO BE A PROTESANT BIBLE HE WOULD HAVE NOT HAVE HAD THE CHURCH CANONIZE THE CATHOLIC VERSION

[edwardpf123]

Actually, none of what you stated is true.

The LXX which is in existance today, was never used by any Jew, since it didn't exist in the 1st century. The Masoretic text has proven to go at least back to before the 1st century AD with the finding of the Isa. Mss in the dead sea scrolls which exactly matches the one we have today.

The OT was recognized by Christ as three parts,law, prophets and writings (TANAKH)

The NT was recognized by the true church long before any Council.

[wjm7259]

actually , all of it is true. Both jesus and the apostles quote from the lxx it was the bible of the apostles and used by jews in the greek speaking parts of the world. Also there is no list of nt books prior to 367 a.d that matches the current one. Athanasius list from his festal lettr is the earliest document with the current 27 books we currently use, and this list was not made official until the councils confirmed it

[DefendingChristJesus]

Yeah you are right, Edward is going off. 1 Esdras was quoted by Christ when making the reference to the Hen and her flock. Or The Fact that 2 Edras mentions the Messiah being called Jesus Christ in Chapter 7.. Also their are pagan names in the Masoritec text.. Adonis, is a pagan greek god, mentioned as the name of God. And other names Id rather not mention due to persecution. Jeremiah 28 in GLXX is what John was mentioning in Rev 9, and Rev1... But in Masorite it is completly removed....

[edwardpf123]

What you said is simply nonsense!

[DefendingChristJesus]

28 For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.

29 After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life.

30 And the world shall be turned into the old silence seven days, like as in the former judgments: so that no man shall remain.

How Is This Nonsense!.... Quit your blasphemy... I reminded by the Father to wink at your ignorance.... You know nothing of what you speak of...

[DefendingChristJesus]

That Was 2 Esdras 7v28-30.....

Stop leaning to the teachings and doctrines of men, and turn to God... Everything you showed was someones opinion, and what they think it its... Not what the scriptures show....

[edwardpf123]

You haven't cited any scripture since 2 Esdras isn't scripture.

[ProphetDavidicus]

the sep vs the masoretic is very complex because in many parts and I mean MANY the septuigant is more correct the masoretic is a good excellent version no doubt but maybe no translation is perfect.

[edwardpf123]

No, and repeating it doesn't change the fact that they never cite a single word from the LXX that we have today-it didn't exist in their day! As for the Books of the NT, that has nothing even to do with the LXX!

And Athanasius list was a list of books already in current use by the local churches. The Councils only acknowledged what the churches had already long ago decided.

[mishakol129]

@kjvonly01 The LXX Bible is NOT a translation of Origen. Don't believe everything you read by self-acclaimed "Scholars" and "Teachers".

The Septuagint was translated from 356-323B.C. NOT 3rd Century A.D

Get the facts right next time before you denigrate the most reliable Bible translation that is in existence. (The Septuagint translation was used by the Apostles and Jesus Christ)

[edwardpf123]

@mishakol129 -

The LXX wasn't used by the Apostles or the Lord, it didn't exist. And even if it had, the current LXX is very poorly translated in most books. That is admitted even by it's defenders. The current LXX is a from the 3rd century AD, not BC, the work of Origen as found in the 5 column of his Hexapla.

[gtepp031387]

@kjvonly01 Lol..this video is complet trash..The greek Orthodox church has maintained the Septuigent(from the seventy) very well..even any honest Jew will tell you the Septuigent has it's origens in 300 B.C...How pretell could the apsotles quote from a book that hadn't been put together yet..lol..a brief reading of the 1st and 2nd century fathers prooves this completly wrong as they too quote from the Septuigent..what a scam..come on Satan your not even trying hard anymore!

[edwardpf123]

@gtepp031387 -Actually, there is very little Mss evidence for a BC LXX, just some scraps from the Torah. The current LXX used today is from Origen's 5th column of his Hexpla. The Apostles never quoted from the LXX, nor did any church 'fathers'. The LXX is really quite poorly translated and has many errors in it.

When quotations from the NT do match, it is becaue Origen simply copied the NT back into the LXX.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 The apostles quoted from the LXX kind of a lot, actually. What makes you go against all mainstream academia and say they didn't? In any case, even one scrap of one verse of the LXX proves that it did exist (that and it was alluded to by writers outside of the Bible) and that it was much older than Origen. Most regrettably, it's full manuscripts aren't as old as we'd like, though they are much older than the Masoretic text.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -The only evidence of any BC LXX are a few scrapts from the Torah. Moreover, when a BC LXX is spoken of, the reference is only to the first 5 books, not the entire OT. But, it is likely that Gr. translations were made of some of books the OT, known as Targums. The Apostles never quoted from any LXX.

The discovery of the copy of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pushed back the MT to the 1st century AD, further back then the 3rd century LXX used today (Origen's 5th column)

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 "The only evidence of any BC LXX are a few scrapts from the Torah. " Also it was talked about by first-century historians like Josephus. Put 2 and 2 together and you'll get 4: the LXX existed in BC times.

"Moreover, when a BC LXX is spoken of, the reference is only to the first 5 books, not the entire OT."

Irrelevant.

"The Apostles never quoted from any LXX." Not according to the vast majority of scholars.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Josephus may have talked about it but he never used it! And there LXX versions in the 1st century AD, not the BC!

It isn't irrelevant if any of the Books the Apostles are suppose to have quoted from in the LXX, didn't even exist in the LXX.

Many scholars do question the existance of a BC LXX, including the editor of the Cambridge LXX (T.W.Manson) who held to the Paul Kahle Thesis, that the LXX was really a collection of Targums.

See Text of OT, Wurthwein, p.62.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 "Josephus may have talked about it but he never used it!" Irrelevant. He is an evidence for it's existence by that name that predates Origen and Theodotian. I have already infallibly proven that the LXX was known to the world by the first century and by that name. You have offered less than nothing but opinion.

As for Paul Kahle, his position was refuted by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva because it was based on nothing of substance. If you have a copy of a thing, it exists.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -No it isn't irrelevant, because Josephus never used a BC LXX. And we don't have a copy of the BC LXX, we have a AD copy.

So, your entire series of posts are irrelevant.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 "The discovery of the copy of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pushed back the MT to the 1st century AD"

You're confused. That is like saying finding a manuscript that agrees with part of Stephenus' Textus Receptus dating to 500 AD pushes the TR back to 500 AD. It does no such thing. It only confirms that the wording in the TR is accurate to that same particular line of Greek manuscripts, but the TR itself didn't exist till Erasmus. The MT didn't exist till the Masoretes.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -First, the fact is that copy of Isa. shows that the copying done by the Masoretes was so accurate that it is virtually identical to the copy of Isa. This gives us great confidence in the MT, that it has been kept pure.

The Received Text has been seen to be 2nd century. The name TR is simpy one given to the text collated by Erasmus, Beza, Stephenus, etc, a text that faithfully represents the Bible the church was reading, in various languages since the 2nd century.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 To your first paragraph, I agree, but it's not relevant.

To your second paragraph I would have to say if that is the case, then words mean nothing. (That and your claim that a substantially TR manuscript exists from the 2nd century on is false.)

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -It is very relevant since we can trust the MT and need not look for earlier Mss hoping to find one;s more accurate.

The Received Text Mss existed from the 2nd century. The TR is just the collation of those Mss.

The Received Text Mss are themselves copies from the Orginals.

I would recomend you read Sturtz and his work on the early readings found in the Byzantine Mss.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Lastly, all Greek NT texts are copies of copies of copies of the originals. The oldest we have couldn't have been any closer than a third generation copy. That said, all such copies were made from the originals on some level. It's not like someone went around making up the Alexandrian texts out of their own head.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Actually someone did go around making up the Alexandrian text out of his own head-Origen!

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Except there are several manuscripts that predate Origen's birth, and they are all Alexandrian.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Those are found in Egypt, the hotbed of heresies, which only shows that Origen was the only one corrupting Manscrpts, but he was the best at it

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 P52, P90, and P104 to name them. There are several others which do not predate Origen's life, but which very likely predate his works, but one Alexandrian text manuscript is sufficient to prove you false on this claim.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn-those are not manuscripts, they are papyri., that is why there is a 'p' before their number.



[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Papyri are manuscripts unless you want to change the definition of manuscript.  "A manuscript or handwrit is written information that has been manually created by someone or some people."

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Correction and my mistake: P 104 is Western in type, not Alexandrian, but also not Byzantine.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -And how does that change the fact that the Byzantine type goes back to the second century?

The Western type is noted for it's additions, the Alexandrian for it's omissions. Someone was messing with the texts! Even Augustine admitted that the reading of the woman caught in adultery had been omitted by some overzealous scribes because they thought it gave license to commit adultery.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Because it makes it supposition instead of fact. There is no physical evidence of a Byzantine text type of the New Testament written at that time. There are some Byzantine-ish readings that go back as far as the 4th century, but if you want a whole-cloth Byzantine type you have to wait for closer to the 6th. It is demonstrable by textual criticism that the Byzantine text relies on the Alexandrian and Western. The pericope adultera is likely not Scripture, though it may be.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -No, the facts prove that it is the Byzantine text that goes back to the 2nd century. In fact, the most recent Nestles-Alland edition had to reinsert hundreds of TR readings. Westcott and Hort had to invent a false conflation theory to explain why the Byz. text was the dominant text, and they have it in the 4th century, not 6th!

The Alexandrian and Western are corruptions of the Byz. text.

I would recommend you read Sturtz's work.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 If you're talking about the NA 27th edition, it did no such thing as I have a copy of it myself.  If you're talking about the 28th edition, it isn't out yet so far as I can see, so I'm not sure how you know what all is in it. If you want to prove your case, simply tell me the name of one Byzantine manuscript from the 2nd century. It's that easy. I'm not interested in Sturtz's work because it's been outdated for some years now.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -No one has refuted Sturtz's work, so it isn't 'outdated'. There are no manscripts of any texttype that go back to the 2nd century, so your question is disengious. The fact is that the early papyri have been found to have Byz. readings in them, and because of those findings, hundreds of TR readings have been reinserted to the Nestle-Alland text. And I believe it is the 27th edition, but I will check to make sure.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Sturtz's work predates some of the oldest manuscripts, actually, though not all of them. You're just flat wrong about second century manuscripts as I've already listed three of them. If you'd like I'll move it back to the 3rd century. Even so there is one manuscript that is unclassifiable other than ecclectic, and two that are Western. The rest are Alexandrian by and large.

"The fact is that the early papyri have been found to have Byz. readings in them"

Name them please.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn

'since the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri (particulary p45 and p46) and the Bodmer Papyrus 11 (p.66)

proof is available that occasionally the later Byz. tex preserves a reading that dates from the second or third century and for which there had been no earlier witness. (Metzger)

Now, I don't have more time to waste on this subject. The fact is older doesn't make it better anyway. The issue is purity, not age. A pure later Mss is better then an earlier corrupt one.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Also, I did find a couple of Byzantine texts from the 5th century, though they are about halfway through it, so if you want to say that me saying 'closer to the 6th' is inaccurate, there's your best shot.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Even Westcott and Hort had it in the 4th century!

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Not relevant. Also, I've already proven that there are texts from the 2nd century. I listed 3. I know of about 7-8 others from the 3rd. They are all Alexandrian/Western. Please name a manuscript that is Byzantine that you think is older/better than these.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -You haven't shown any such thing! The earliest Unical Mss are Vaticanus and Sinaitcus, both regarded as some of the most corrupt in existance (Burgon) and from the 3rd century.

The Byzantine text type goes back to the 2nd century, and it's readings are found in the earlier papyri, and in the Old latin as well.

And those additions of the Byz.readings into Nestles,occured in the 26th edit. of Nestles.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Who said anything about uncials in particular? Regardless, no, P52, P90, P104, P32, P46, P64/67, P66, P77, and Uncial 0189 all predate Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by over a hundred years, and they aren't the only manuscripts that predate them. Papyri are manuscript. A manuscript is any document written by hand (I.E. not printed by machine.) The Old Latin manuscripts start in the middle of the 4th century and go on from there. Most are Western types early on.

[edwardpf123]

Unical 0189 only contains a small portion of Acts 5. While the OL Mss may themselves be 4th century, many scholars believe they represent 2nd century readings.

As for the LXX, there were likely Gr. Targums in existance, not a complete OT and neither Christ nor the Apostles used them.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 According to what person whose full time job it is to know and teach such things?

Also, the OL by and large doesn't support Byzantine readings either. Sometimes it does, but they are sparse, and if anything, that fact is a witness against them.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn

The close textual relation disclosed between the Latin and the Syriac versions has led some authorities to believe that, after all, the earliest Latin version may have been made in the East, and possibly at Antioch. (ISBE)

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn These Old Latin translations going back in their earliest forms to nearly the middle of the 2nd century are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were made. They are the more valuable inasmuch as they are manifestly very literal translations. Our great uncial manuscripts reach no farther back than the 4th century, whereas in the Old Latin we have evidence--indirect indeed and requiring to be cautiously used--reaching back to the 2nd century (ISBE)

[jjpetkusiii]

Thank you, Brother Ed, for uploading this excellent video.

One of the most absurdist and laughable ploys of the "Yea-hath-God-said" crowd over the centuries is their dirty love affair with the wildly corrupt LXX. What a bunch of devilish rubes! The suckers for the "Septuagint scholarship" in lieu of faith in Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV) are the worst and silliest of the lot.

God speed!

[edwardpf123]

Amen brother. I just today came across a footnote in the Ryrie Study Bible recommending that Heb.1:6 be changed to the LXX reading found in Deut. 32:43.

Thank you for your comment!

[armandosainz]

I have a KJV Ryrie Study Bible and although Ryrie is a dispensationalist, he does NOT believe what he reads. He constantly attempts to correct the KJV.

[edwardpf123]

Amen brother! He has a Study Bible in the NASB and NIV versions as well. When anyone reads any footnote 'correcting' the KJB, they need to simply ignore it.

Thank you for your comment.

[jinkyfc]

another very well studied video brother Ed. Your contribution here on Youtube is really appreciated :)

Hebrews 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

[edwardpf123]

Thank you brother, as is yours!

[edwardpf123]

Amen! The LXX is a 3rd century A.D. work, not a B.C. work. It has no auhority over the Masoretic text. It is generally poorly translated. The Hebrew text was perfectly translated into English with the AV1611.

People only run to the LXX to avoid the truth found in the Old Testament writings.

As for Christ being an Angel before His incarnation, He APPEARED as an Angel, the Angel of the Lord. But He never had the nature of an Angel (Heb.2:16)