"But if any one says that the writings of Moses AND OF THE REST OF THE PROPHETS (Emphasis, ed.) were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word, but had written the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honor, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; BUT WE OURSELVES HAVING BEEN IN ALEXANDRIA, SAW THE REMAINS OF THE LITTLE COTS AT THE PHAROS STILL PRESERVED, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country's tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1, "Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks," XIII).
Justin says that the essential FACTS concerning the Septuagint... having been translated at the behest of Ptolemy Philadelphus was absolutely true, and that "MANY OTHERS" had written and borne witness of these things, and that he himself had seen the "little cots" at Pharos that the original translators had used!
When Was the Septuagint Written?
Says Unger's Bible Dictionary, about the origin of the Septuagint:
"1. The Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament, enjoys the unique distinction of being the first book or rather library of books, for such it is, known to be translated into another language. This translation is called the Septuagint and was made IN THE THIRD AND SECOND CENTURIES B.C. During this period the ENTIRE Hebrew Bible was put into the Greek language. It was in the reign of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS (285-246 B.C.) that the [Law] was put into the Greek tongue . . . . Certainly by the middle of the second century B.C. the Old Testament was COMPLETELY RENDERED IN GREEK. The name Septuagint was eventually applied to the ENTIRE Greek Old Testament" (p.1147).
The dean of evangelical Biblical scholars, F. F. Bruce, says in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture concerning the Septuagint:
"The Greek translation of the Scriptures was made available from time to time in the third and second centuries B.C. (say during the century 250-150 B.C.). The Law, ... the reading of the Law was essential to synagogue worship, and it was important that what was read should be intelligible to the congregation." (p.43-44).
It should be perfectly clear that there is no truth whatsoever in the claim of our critic who attempts to prove that the Septuagint is a "fraud" and a "forgery" and "completely corrupt"!
Further Confirmation
The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, under the heading "Septuagint," tells us about the character of the Septuagint, which our critic finds "utterly corrupt." Says this multi-volume authority:
"The Greek OT as it exists today is a composite book, the work of various translators of varied ability who worked at different times. The WHOLE OT WAS PROBABLY COMPLETE BY THE MIDDLE, CERTAINLY BY THE END, OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. It is generally held that the provenance of all of them was Egypt...". (volume 4, p.276).
Peloubet's Bible Dictionary tells us further, about the Septuagint:
"The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowledge of Hebrew than their brethren in Palestine; their familiar language was Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers soon after the time of Alexander, and under the early Ptolemies. They would naturally follow the same practice as the Jews in Palestine; and hence would arise in time an entire Greek version. The commonly received story respecting its origin is contained in an extant letter ascribed to Aristeas . . . This is the story which probably gave to the version the title of the Septuagint, and which has been repeated in various forms by the Christian writers. But it is now generally admitted that the letter is spurious, and is probably the fabrication of an Alexandrian Jews shortly before the Christian era. STILL, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THERE WAS A BASIS OF FACT for the fiction; on three points of the story there is no material difference of opinion, and they are CONFIRMED by the study of the version itself: -- 1. The version was made at Alexandria. 2. It was begun in the TIME OF THE EARLY PTOLEMIES, about 280 B.C. 3. The Law (i.e. the Pentateuch) ...was translated first. (the entire of the Hebrew Scriptures were known collectively as "The Law", [op.cit., ed.]) The Septuagint version was HIGHLY ESTEEMED BY THE HELLENISTIC JEWS BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST. Because of the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world the Greek translation of their Scriptures was AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PREPARING THE WAY FOR CHRIST'S COMING. Its' existence in a language which could be read throughout the world made even the Gentiles familiar with the beliefs of the Jews, and their wonderful history which would of course include the guiding Providence of God, and his promise of a Saviour to come, throughout the nations. No less wide was the influence of the Septuagint in the spread of the GOSPEL. For a long period the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the far larger part of the Christian Church". (p.604).
The New Bible Dictionary tells us more about the Septuagint. It corroborates the account of Peloubet, and other scholars, and provides additional details for us to consider. As to the origin of the Septuagint, it declares:
"1. ORIGINS. Its precise origins are still debated. A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the High Priest at Jerusalem . . . . The same story is told WITH VARIATIONS by Josephus [indicating that Josephus the historian also had OTHER SOURCES for his detailed version of the event], but later writers embellish it with miraculous details. A Jewish priest ARISTOBULUS, who lived in the 2nd century B.C., is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius as stating that while portions relating to Hebrew history had been translated into Greek previously, THE ENTIRE LAW WAS TRANSLATED IN THE REIGN OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS . . ." (p.1258). This leads to the possible conclusion that the only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that King Philadelphus I did not accurately possess in full were the precise copies taken from the Scrolls themselves in Jerusalem: the First Five Books of Moses! (ed.)
This same authority describes the value of the Septuagint by pointing out:
"But in numerous places the unrevised LXX text disagrees with the MT in meaning, order, and content; and this is important, since the LXX was, until recently, the earliest witness to the Old Testament text. No Hebrew MS, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was earlier than the late 9th century A.D. Moreover, these Hebrew MSS all contained the text as edited by the Masoretes, whereas the LXX (i.e., before the main revisions) witness to a pre-Masoretic Text. Where it differs from the MT, the LXX is in some places evidently inferior, in other places just as clearly SUPERIOR; sometimes it is supported by the Samaritan Text or one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These latter occasionally agree with the LXX, where formerly we thought that the LXX was merely a loose paraphrase, unauthorized by any Hebrew . . ." (p.1260).
Was Origen Able to Foresee the Future?
Now, if the Septuagint was a complete forgery and a fraud, as our critic claims, one wonders why it is corroborated and supported by passages in other ancient texts such as the Samaritan Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Our critic claims that Origen wrote the Septuagint about 230 A.D., and falsely claimed it was older. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Text of the Septuagint! Was Origen so clever and "psychic" that he could foretell 1,700 years in advance what readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, WHICH WERE NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL 1948, would anyone say? Not so! Says F.F. Bruce:
"Origen's chief contribution to Old Testament studies was the compilation called the Hexapla (Greek for 'sixfold'). This was an edition of the Old Testament which exhibited side by side in six vertical columns (1) the Hebrew Text, (2) the Hebrew text transcribed into Greek letters, (3) Aquila's Greek version, (4) Symmachus' Greek version, (5) the Septuagint, (6) Theodotion's Greek version. For certain books two and even three other Greek versions were added in further columns. Origen paid special attention to the Septuagint column; his aim was to present AS ACCURATE AN EDITION OF THIS VERSION AS WAS POSSIBLE. By means of critical signs, for example, he indicated places where the Septuagint omitted something found in the Hebrew text or added something absent from the Hebrew text" (The Canon of Scripture, p.73).
Why was Origen so careful and concerned about making the best possible edition of the Septuagint? Because the Church of his time believed that the original Septuagint, as translated into Greek, was DIVINELY INSPIRED!!!
Irenaeus, who was born and brought up in the province of Asia, was in his youth a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and remembered with gratitude the instruction he had received from him, including Polycarp's reminiscences with the Apostle John, and others who had been eye witnesses of the Lord. According to the writings of Irenaeus, "The Old Testament writings are indispensable witnesses to the history of Salvation; the Septuagint version was DIVINELY INSPIRED".!!! (Bruce, p.173; Iraneaus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2).
Clement, also, stresses the inspiration of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (Bruce, p.188; Clement, Strom. 1.22).
He spent the last quarter of the second century, in Alexandria, before migrating to Asia Minor when persecution came on the church in Alexandria in 202 A.D. With all this historical witness which leads support and credibility to the Septuagint, how should we view this ancient translation? Is there more to it than we have ever imagined?
What Version Did Christ and the Apostles Quote From?
Contrary to our critic who despises the Septuagint, and claims that New Testament authors did not quote from it, modern scholarship totally disagrees. We read in The New Bible Dictionary:
"V. SIGNIFICANCE. Valuable as a monument of Hellenistic Greek, the LXX occasionally preserves meanings of Hebrew words that were current when the LXX translation was made, but which were subsequently lost. It acts also as a linguistic and theological bridgehead between the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New; for it served as 'Bible' to generations of Greek-speaking Jews in many countries, and IT IS OFTEN QUOTED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Luke and the writer to the Hebrews use it most. Matthew least. The New Testament quotations which do not agree with the LXX can be attributed to inexact quotation from memory, the writer's own translation, translation of Aramaic sources, translation of Hebrew texts different from the MT, perhaps to other Greek translations, perhaps also to deliberate adaptation of the Hebrew UNDER THE HOLY SPIRITS' GUIDANCE.)" !!! (p.1261).
The fact that the Septuagint was the translation of choice in the vast majority of New Testament quotations from the Old Testament, by Christ and the apostles, ought to tell us something. This fact alone bolsters the authority and importance of the Septuagint version, as it was used at that time! Since the Septuagint was already being used for hundreds of years before Origen was even born, there is no way he could have rewritten the Septuagint to conform to Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament! Such an attempt would have been immediately discovered and exposed. It would be comparable to trying to re-write the U.S. Constitution, today, claiming that the "new" version was the original version of two centuries ago!
Who Was Origen, Anyway?
What was, then, the involvement of Origen, the early church theologian, of Alexandria, and the Septuagint? Was Origen really such a bad fellow, as our critic paints him to be? Was he a scheming paranoid pretentiously seeking his own exaltation and fame? Was he a forger and a fraud? Not at all. He was a brilliant and gifted man of his time, who performed a very valuable work for the Christian church as a whole. Says Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible:
"Modern LXX criticism inevitably goes back to the prodigious work of Origen (d.254), the father of LXX criticism. By the beginning of the third century the history of the Greek text was already complex. Origen accordingly determined to make a critical edition of the LXX. To this end he studied Hebrew already early in life. By 240 he had collected immense amounts of materials and began active work on his mammoth Hexapla, so named from the six columns of texts it contained. Column 1 contained the Hebrew text which served as the basis for his textual studies. The other columns contained the following texts: II -- the Hebrew text in Greek transcription; III -- Aq.; IV -- Symm.; V -- LXX; VI -- Theod." (p.275).
Says F. F. Bruce, Origen was the leading Biblical scholar of the entire Greek early church:
"The next surviving Christian list of Old Testament books was drawn up by Origen (AD 285-254), the greatest biblical scholar among the Greek fathers. He spent the greater part of his life in his native Alexandria, where from an early age he was head of the catechetical school in the church of that city; then, in AD 231 he moved to Caesaria in Palestine, where he discharged a similar ministry. He was an indefatigable commentator on the books of the Bible: to this work he devoted his mastery of the long-established techniques of Alexandrian scholarship. . . . "Origen's chief contribution to Old Testament studies was the compilation called the Hexapla (Greek for 'sixfold'). This was an edition of the Old Testament which exhibited side by side in six vertical columns (1) the Hebrew text, (2) the Hebrew text transcribed into Greek letters, (3) Aquila's Greek version, (4) Symmachus's Greek version, (5) the Septuagint, (6) Theodotion's Greek version. . . . Origen paid special attention to the Septuagint column; his aim was to present AS ACCURATE AN EDITION OF THIS VERSION AS WAS POSSIBLE. By means of critical signs, for example, he indicated places where the Septuagint omitted something found in the Hebrew text or added something absent from the Hebrew text" (The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, p.73).
It is a shame for a modern "critic" to try to bring obloquy and opprobrium upon the name and reputation of an eminent biblical scholar who lived some 17 centuries ago, and is no longer alive to defend himself from the accusations, insinuations and slander. Nevertheless, the reputation of Origen as a prodigious, hard-working and painstaking scholar stands defended, and attested to by his very own works, and the ablest of scholars who have studied his writings.
Variant Hebrew Texts
The Samaritan community separated from the Jewish community at some point during the post- exilic period (between 540 B.C. and 100 B.C.). During that time, they canonized their own version of the Hebrew Scriptures. Biblical scholars soon learned that the Samaritan Pentateuch differed from the Masoretic text in some 6,000 instances. At first they thought these differences were due to sectarian disagreements. However, we read in Manuscripts of the Old Testament, by Mark R. Norton:
"After further assessment, however, it became clear that the Samaritan Pentateuch represented a text of much earlier origin than the Masoretic Text. And although a few of the distinctions of the Samaritan Pentateuch were clearly the result of sectarian concerns, MOST of the differences were NEUTRAL in this respect. . . The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch had MUCH IN COMMON WITH THE SEPTUAGINT, SOME OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, revealed that most of the differences with the Masoretic Text were not due to sectarian differences. More likely, they were due to the USE OF A DIFFERENT TEXTUAL BASE, WHICH WAS PROBABLY IN WIDE USE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST UNTIL WELL AFTER THE TIME OF CHRIST" (The Origin of the Bible, edited by Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, 1992, p.163).
This text, like that of the Septuagint, seems to reflect an early Hebrew Old Testament text which was considered authoritative in the centuries prior to and during the time of Christ -- yet both of them differ significantly from the Masoretic text which was finalized by Jewish rabbinic scribes during the time 500-900 A.D. Says this same author, concerning the Septuagint itself:
"The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, its witness being significantly OLDER than that of the Masoretic Text. According to tradition, the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated by a team of seventy scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. (Hence its common designation LXX, the Roman numerals for 70.) The Jewish community in Egypt spoke Greek, not Hebrew, so a Greek translation of the Old Testament was sincerely needed by that community of Jews. The exact date of translation is not known, but evidence indicates that the Septuagint Pentateuch was completed in the third century B.C. . . . "The value of the Septuagint to textual criticism varies widely from book to book. It might be said that the Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various authors, who differed greatly in their methods and their knowledge of Hebrew. The translations of the individual books are in no way uniform. Many books are translated almost literally, while others like Job and Daniel are quite dynamic. So the value of each book for textual criticism must be assessed on a book-by-book basis. . . "The content of some books is significantly different when comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Septuagint's Jeremiah is missing significant portions found in the Masoretic Text, and the order of the text is significantly different as well. What these differences mean is difficult to know with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Septuagint is simply a poor translation and is therefore missing portions of the original Hebrew. BUT THESE SAME DIFFERENCES COULD ALSO INDICATE THAT EDITORIAL ADDITIONS AND CHANGES WORKED THEIR WAY INTO THE MASORETIC TEXT" (p.164-165).
But WHY would the Jews want to change the text, and alter the text which became known as the Masoretic Text? Perhaps there is much more to this question than meets the eye at first glance! The Septuagint Text was the standard text used by Jews in the synagogues in the Gentile world, and also became the standard text used by early Christians. For hundreds of years it served its purpose well, without any controversy. Even among the Jews in Judea, [Koine] Greek was a language spoken BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, and there were many Greek-speaking synagogues, even in Palestine. The Septuagint was considered the "official" Greek version of the Scriptures, ever since its original translation. But what happened? Says this same author:
"By the time of Christ, even among the Jews, a majority of the people spoke Aramaic AND GREEK, not Hebrew. The New Testament writers evidence their inclination to the Septuagint by using it when quoting the Old Testament. . . Because of the broad ACCEPTANCE and USE of the Septuagint among Christians, the Jews RENOUNCED IT in favor of a number of other Greek versions. Aquila, a proselyte and disciple of Rabbi Akiba, produced a new translation around A.D. 130. In the spirit of his teacher, Aquila wrote an extremely literal translation, often to the point of communicating poorly in Greek. This literal approach, however, gained this version wide acceptance among Jews" (p.165).
Consider for a moment the strangeness of this situation. The Jews were so upset with the fact that the Christians were quoting from the Jewish [Approved] Septuagint to promulgate their new "heresy," that they themselves came to "renounce" the Septuagint, which they had endorsed and accepted for the past four hundred years, and accepted in its place a comparatively poor translation -- very literal but which communicated poorly in Greek! (Aquilas' "approved" translation, for example).
This was a gigantic step for Rabbinic Judaism to take. This was a major change, and occurred at the inception of the Bar Kochba rebellion, in 130 A.D. Rabbi Akiba, the leading Jewish sage of that time, himself endorsed Bar Kochba as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, and supported him in his rebellion against Rome. Jewish Christians, then called Nazarenes, of course, could not go along with this identification, nor support the rebellion against Rome -- thus causing a deeper wedge to separate them from the rabbinic Jewish community. (Note: believers in Y'shua (Jesus) were also called Christians or Followers of The Way)
The SOURCE of the Septuagint Text
Where, then, did the original text itself of the Septuagint come from? Since it differs from the Masoretic text, in several places, yet was originally the OFFICIAL BIBLE OF JEWISH SYNAGOGUES throughout the Roman Empire, where Greek was spoken, why is it different, and what do these differences mean? What is their significance? Says The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible:
"The LXX REPRESENTS A PRE-MASORETIC HEBREW TEXT and accordingly is IMPORTANT for textual and exegetical studies . . . . "The LXX became the O.T. of the Christians, who used it in their controversies with the Jews, even though it differed in various words or passages from the Hebrew text then in vogue. The QUOTATIONS FROM THE O.T. IN THE N.T. ARE USUALLY CITATIONS FROM THE LXX, either verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes; in other cases, the N.T. writers apparently themselves translated from the original Hebrew. The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the LXX (Acts 8:30-33)" (p.972).
The Septuagint text actually represents a PRE-MASORETIC HEBREW TEXT, which appears to have been lost over the centuries. It is THIS PRE-MASORETIC TEXT, the basis of the LXX, that Jesus and the Apostles and the New Testament writers QUOTED FROM!