The Greatest Thing Since Alexander: The Septuagint

Many months have passed since I last posted anything about Map the Bible. My procrastination has stemmed partly from the exploration of other subjects, but mostly from the unbelievable complexity of textual criticism, and the need to humbly acknowledge my ineptitude with the historical data. Further, it is safe to say that the foundations of my faith have been shaken and tested during my silence, and I cannot find adequate words to communicate the frustration I have experienced while trying to communicate my findings. Just know that many obstacles, including multiple accidental deletions and re-writings, have been part of the process. (Dramatic pause to save this document.)  My apologies for the weird formatting, but if I try to fix it, something is bound to go awry, and it will be another month before I publish this.

I am now making my way back to lay the groundwork for Map the Bible, but not with ease, as I must first dust the cobwebs off of the points I had hoped to make (one of which deals with how we got our Bible, hence this exploration).  Reacquainting myself with my sources feels a little like reinventing the bicycle: not all the way back to the wheel, but a definite departure from progress. And yet, the insight gained along the way has proven invaluable, and may lead to other future endeavors.

In my last post, Essential Rabbit Trails, I dropped the bomb that the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, abbreviated LXX) "provides a complete, accurate rendering of the Hebrew scriptures."  I would like to apologize for making such a sweeping statement; it was a gross oversimplification.  To clarify, its oldest extant form is comprised of mere fragments.  Papyrus Rylands 458 is dated to the mid-second-century, B.C., and probably contains about a paragraph's worth of material. The oldest, nearly complete manuscripts, dated from the fourth century, A.D., are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus.  Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the 3rd century, A.D., contains only about half of the Old Testament, and none of them completely agree, but all of them, together, provide a pretty solid view of the text, and they still predate the Masoretic Text by 500-600 years.  So I would like to amend my previous error, saying instead, "The Septuagint is our oldest, nearly complete rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures (and apocryphal books), and provides insight into the original message of the Old Testament."  I fully intend to weigh my words more carefully, in the future.

But wait.  There's more.

While these facts might seem to render the Septuagint of questionable value, critical, scholarly compilations comparing the most reliable texts have been assembled over the centuries and translated into various languages.  Most notably, the German Gottingen Septuagint is probably the most thorough published attempt to restore the Septuagint to its original intent.  The New English Translation of the Septuagint may be its best English counterpart.  I have an interlinear version, called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, which shows the Greek and the English together, and utilizes a modified AB-Strong's numbering system.  This makes it easy to study each word meaning, and to move back and forth between the Old and New Testaments.  It is one of my favorite study Bibles.  There are a few other notable English translations, such as Brenton's Septuagint, with an Elizabethan flair, and others preferred by the Greek Orthodox Church, such as the newly released Orthodox Study Bible.  On the very sharpest edge of the issue (as opposed to the well-chiseled view that God spoke Elizabethan English), there is an ever-changing online version, called the 2001 Translation, which is subject to constant revision, as further clarity is gained through the ongoing research of contributing editors.  But I digress.

Why would I want to read the Septuagint, anyway?  According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "its chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text [translated into Greek] earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript [the Masoretic Text] extant (916 A.D.)...[Additionally,] it was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language." (See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia link above) It is partly because of the Septuagint's association with the apostolic church that the Jews rejected it, replacing overtly Messianic themes with wording that could be described as more Israel-centric.  I initially discovered a change in the Masoretic Text, rather by accident, when a certain phrase in Deuteronomy 32:8 jumped out at me one night, as I was listening to the ESV Bible on my YouVersion app.

Notice the following differences:

ESV:  "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God."

KJV:  "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."

I happened to notice the phrase, "sons of God," because I had recently studied this phrase in another context, and didn't remember it being in this particular passage.  I found myself inspired to compile a list of this particular verse in over 30 different English translations, to see which Bibles rendered this verse along the lines of the "children of Israel," and which ones favored the "sons of God" interpretation (some of which just say "angels").  I checked each one against the Septuagint and Masoretic texts, and each translation falls neatly under one source text or the other, for this particular verse.  The Masoretic text uses the phrase, "children of Israel."  Not incidentally, nowhere in the Old Testament does God refer to Israel as the "sons of God," so this is a rather presumptuous interpretation, in my opinion.

Throughout the Old Testament, the phrase, "sons of God" is used to refer to angels, which are direct creations of God, as in Job 38:4-7 and elsewhere.  In the New Testament, it refers to Jesus and to those who have faith in Him, who are also the direct creations of God, having been born of the Spirit.  Let the implications fall where they will.  Sons of God.  Old Testament?  Angels.  New Testament?  Jesus and His followers.  Not the nation of Israel.  Why, Masoretes?  Why?

I am indebted to scholar, author and translator, Dr. William Welty, who graciously allowed me an interview during a conference in Idaho this past October, for his recommendation of Prof. Peter Flint as a resource.  Welty himself provided some insightful commentary on the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, as well, but the subject matter we discussed doesn't fit very neatly into this present discussion.  However, I rejoiced to discover a lecture by Flint, an expert on the Dead Sea scrolls (which also render Deut. 32:8 as "the sons of God"), and a respected contributor (with Welty) to the forthcoming International Standard Version (ISV) Bible (accessible free online, here), which incorporates the scriptural passages found in the Dead Sea scrolls into its text.  (If you don't know about the incredible discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, you can watch a short video about them here; they are the object of my next obsession.) Flint provides specific examples of how the authorized Hebrew text was changed in ways indicative of an anti-Christian agenda.  I have included one such example, here, where he speaks of Psalm 22, as it appears in the King James Version.  I have transcribed his words almost verbatim, so that you can catch his enthusiasm.

This is a very famous psalm: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," quoted by Jesus on the cross.  If you go to verse 16, it says this: "Dogs have surrounded me, a pack of evil ones close in on me.  They have pierced my hands and feet."  Now, for Christians or Messianic Jews, this is clear.  This is a Messianic psalm; this refers to crucifixion or dying by being pierced, right?  No contest.  However, if you went to the Hebrew Bible, used by Christians and Jews today, you'd be rather shocked to discover it doesn't say that.  If you go to the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic Text used by Jews and Christians, this is what it says: "Dogs surrounded me, a pack of evil ones closes in on me; like a lion are my hands and feet."  If you asked a rabbi about this, he would say that Christians changed the word of God to make it Messianic.  Now, my friends, we believe in a God of truth.  If it says, "like a lion," how dare they put "they have pierced my hands and feet?"  So, this is a very serious issue.  Does it say "like a lion" or "they have pierced?"  Why does the King James even do that?  Well, the answer is that they (the King James translators) were using the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation (for this particular verse).  However, let's have a look at the Hebrew.  Is there a Hebrew (Dead Sea) scroll?  What does the earliest Hebrew say?  There is only one scroll that preserves this verse.  It's called the Nahal Hever Psalms scroll...I have worked with this scroll...Sometimes the scrolls are fragmentary and sometimes the missing part is not there.  In this case, it was there.  Hallelujah, it was there!  The missing part was there.  And there it is, in glorious black and white; I've transcribed it for you, but you can see it very clearly... "They have pierced my hands and my feet."  I have just shared with you dynamite.  I have just shared with you what scholars and others have said was a deliberate change by people trying to put Jesus in the text.  I've just shown you:  No, it was in the original text, in the Hebrew, in the Psalms scrolls. *

Again, we see that the Masoretic Text was changed!  As I've already stated, the Septuagint has its share of issues, but in terms of my intellectual and emotional response, I am less annoyed that I can't take the Septuagint at face value than I am that the Hebrew text was deliberately manipulated.  Even so, this discovery has not reduced my faith in scripture, nor should it do so to yours.  If we are now learning to study it more deeply to see how the Old and New Testaments agree, then perhaps we are entering the age spoken of in Daniel 12:4 (ESV) when "knowledge shall increase.”  I want to reiterate that the accuracy of the Old Testament doesn't affect the message of the New Testament Gospel.  I fully trust that God has preserved His word as best fits the needs of His people during the times in which they live.  May we rise to the challenge to "Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision." (2 Tim. 2:15, ISV)

The "reflections" that I share here in the "Map the Bible Research" blog are of a more personal nature than I plan to make the text of Map the Bible.  I created this separate venue to chronicle my personal journey through the research and writing process. My next post (on the "Map the Bible" blog) will be an addition to the text of "Where in the World Was the Garden of Eden?", discussing how we got our Bible, and will provide the historical background and other evidences for the reliability of the scriptures.  Although the history of the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts play a significant part in that section, I only plan to provide a brief summary, which will be appropriate for students from a middle school level.  If I get bogged down in the research again, I may have to post here to vent before I can get back to the text.  Your patience and encouragement are always appreciated!

   *  *Flint, Peter. "2013 SP Conference Workshop 6: The Authenticity of the Scriptures." Koinonia Institute. Koinonia Institute, 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

Links from previous post (as promised):

James Strong, author of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Strong_(theologian)

King James, the KJV Bible and the Geneva Bible

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html

http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html (Concise wealth of info on history of English bibles - excellent read)

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm

The Council of Jamnia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm

http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Dead Sea Scrolls

http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=16&sub=102&cat_name=Ancient+Documents&subcat_name=Dead+Sea+Scrolls

Septuagint and Masoretic Text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/jps1917.htm

http://www.kitrust.org/pay-per-view/vod-package/how-we-got-our-bible

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/genesis/1.htm