Accusations against the Septuagint

  • Thread starter Thread starter kleary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kleary

Guest
How would you answer these accusations? I got them the other day in the mail from a Fundamentalist who is corresponding with me:
A lot of corrupted MSS (Hesychian etc which were written in 350 A.D. (Not 250) BC to read wrong. They have been call the Septuagint (LXX) by the Scholars of today in just about every Bible college today Catholic and protestant alike. Actually there is no such thing as an " LXX"; this “Bible,” as the Westcott and Hort theory, is a subjective fabrication of Greek Biblical Scholar. The “LXX” in its present form consists of manuscripts written 300 years after Paul was executed, and consist s largely of corrections of the Hebrew texts. The so called LXX has inserted the name "Canaan " in verse 12, although it is missing from the list in 1 Chronicles 1:18 in the Hebrew. This is a perfect example of the type of text manipulation done by Alexandrian scribes (150-300 B.C.; it is amazing that the majority of conservative scholars (1800-1990) have not yet caught on to what this "LXX " actually is in view of the demonstration (and scores of others) of text garbling. The conservative scholars should have noticed that the insertion of “Canaan” into the text is done by the pen of a scribe who read it in Luke 3:35,36. Whoever wrote the Septuagint had the complete New Testament on his writing table when he altered the word of God. This can be demonstrating by a score of Old Testament texts which have been altered to match New Testament texts. Modem scholarship detours these glaring text by three stratagems:
  1. Pretending that the “early Christians” (expressions used by the Catholics) not found in the word of God, used the “LXX” which is proved by the fact that the O.T. quotations found in it are those quoted in the N.T.
  2. Pretending that “Cainan” in Luke 3 is a spurious gloss which crept in from an original spurious gloss in a Pre-Christian “LXX.”
  3. Pretending that Vaticanus (B) and Sinaticus (Aleph, 350 A.D). were written 250 B.C. upon the order of Ptolemy Philadelphius.
    The Bible believer’s answer to all this make-believe “horseplay” is simple:
  4. No Hebrew Christian in the first century would touch a Greek O.T. if it were in existence.
  5. Since the gloss of Genesis 11:12 was written 320 years after the ascension of Christ, it is apparent that Luke 3:35,36 is a correct text, which someone has tried to reinsert in the O.T. account “to help God along,”
  6. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, quoted in commentaries as the LXX (and sometimes Alexandrinus) were written three centuries after the events of Acts 1-, and should be listed in commentaries for what they are - post New Testament apocrypha - not “the LXX.” This means simply that any set of commentaries citing the “LXX without telling you that it is not the LXX” of traditional history 250 B.C. in Egypt - is a corrupt commentary written by a man, or men, who purposely deceive their readers. This would include 95 per cent of the published commentaries on the market today.
(continued in post 2)
 
(continued from previous post)

Origen, Symmachus, Theodotian, Aquilla, and company (with the help of a forged letter by Philo of Alexandria) “helped God out” as much as they could, trying to match up N.T. passages with O.T. passages, and like their progeny (the ASV and RSV translators), figured they rendered “invaluable service” to “future generation of scholars” etc. What they did was pervert the word of the .living God Jer 4: 23:36. Some of these people mean to do good by corrupting the word of God but to be quite trite about it “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” Proverbs 14:12.
To take into consideration the ten or so instances lets just take Matt 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
The word ^firstborn" is omitted in the Westcott and Hort Pro-Catholic text, used for the RV, ASV, RSV and the modem translations. The pressure of Roman tradition is felt quite strongly in all committees subsequent to 1611, and we are not surprised to find the word “firstborn” omitted, as such a reading carries with it the implication (and fact) that Mary had other sons after Jesus Christ That these are the facts is apparent to any sane reader, for in Mark 6:3 the brothers are listed! The standard Jesuit objection is that “brothers and sisters” here are really “cousins,” and since the Bible does occasionally “mix” terms which refer to blood relationships (as we have learned in our study of genealogies, the objection could be valid. However, in this case there has been a definite error, for the word “COUSIN” is used in the Bible when referring to a cousin! In Luke 1:36 the Holy Spirit does not have to use the word “sister”. He uses COUSIN. And again, in Luke 1:58 He does not use the word “brothers and sisters,” but the word COUSINS. If the “brothers and sisters” of Mark 6:3 are cousins, then why is the word COUSIN not found in the text? It was available.
But there is even a greater reason why the Bible Believer can be absolutely certain that the King James Text is superior to the Greek ofWescott and Hort and the superstitious errors of the pagan priests. In John 2:12,17 we are told that the reference is to the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet when we check the reference in the Psalms, it is found in peculiar words: “I am become a stranger unto MY BRETHREN, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN”! Without trying this thing is going to be longer than 5 or 6 pages as I want to comment on what you said about this verse. The N.T. confirms this, for in Galatians 1:19 and again in 1 Cor 15:7) we find a reference to the “Lord’s brother.^ The " brethren” of the Lord could be cousins, but the “Lord’s brother” is a dead giveaway, for this James had a special post-resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:7) for the purpose of converting him from his unbelief, recorded in John 7:5! This James is not the apostle, for all the apostles are given in 1st Cor 15:7, and the “12” are given in 1 Corinthians 15:5. You need to look up these verses as the apostles believed in him so how could they have been his brethren who didn’t believe in Him John 7:5. However your Bible like all the new bibles (for they are Roman Catholic bibles) might have conveniently changed it.
 
It sounds like this is one of the crazy ‘conspiracy theories’ that some people seem to fall into these days. For instance, I know of one individual who was convinced that there were really 4 theives crucified with Christ as opposed to the two that were actually there.

The difficulty with these theories is that they are hard to refute because there is rarely any evidence for them to criticize, and because the theories always say that everyone in the world is trying to hide this fact, so no matter who you ask they will lie to you. For example, this individual claims that not only Catholic but that all Protestant scholars deny the truth of what he is saying. He is the only one that really knows the truth!

I would begin by asking him where he got this information. I would then ask him to provide the name of a single reputable scholar who supports this idea.

There is more that can be said; I am tired now so I need time to get my thoughts together.
 
As a textual critic well familar with all of the manuscript evidence which the OP adduces, I must ask: which Bible does Kleary use?
And how does he know - since he clearly knows so much better than everyone else in heaven or on earth - that it is the “right” biblical text?
 
since there is no authoritative citation or reference for claims made by the writer, no refutation is necessary or possible. Have him provide sources, and also use an authorized translation of the Bible. On what authority does he make these claims? He had better have authentic historical documentation. Since obviously he will not be able to produce such, just dismiss it.
 
To quote a more brilliant man than myself:

“The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable.”
 
kleary said:
(continued from previous post)

Origen, Symmachus, Theodotian, Aquilla, and company (with the help of a forged letter by Philo of Alexandria) “helped God out” as much as they could, trying to match up N.T. passages with O.T. passages, and like their progeny (the ASV and RSV translators), figured they rendered “invaluable service” to “future generation of scholars” etc. What they did was pervert the word of the .living God Jer 4: 23:36. Some of these people mean to do good by corrupting the word of God but to be quite trite about it “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” Proverbs 14:12.
To take into consideration the ten or so instances lets just take Matt 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
The word ^firstborn" is omitted in the Westcott and Hort Pro-Catholic text, used for the RV, ASV, RSV and the modem translations. The pressure of Roman tradition is felt quite strongly in all committees subsequent to 1611, and we are not surprised to find the word “firstborn” omitted, as such a reading carries with it the implication (and fact) that Mary had other sons after Jesus Christ That these are the facts is apparent to any sane reader, for in Mark 6:3 the brothers are listed! The standard Jesuit objection is that “brothers and sisters” here are really “cousins,” and since the Bible does occasionally “mix” terms which refer to blood relationships (as we have learned in our study of genealogies, the objection could be valid. However, in this case there has been a definite error, for the word “COUSIN” is used in the Bible when referring to a cousin! In Luke 1:36 the Holy Spirit does not have to use the word “sister”. He uses COUSIN. And again, in Luke 1:58 He does not use the word “brothers and sisters,” but the word COUSINS. If the “brothers and sisters” of Mark 6:3 are cousins, then why is the word COUSIN not found in the text? It was available.
But there is even a greater reason why the Bible Believer can be absolutely certain that the King James Text is superior to the Greek ofWescott and Hort and the superstitious errors of the pagan priests. In John 2:12,17 we are told that the reference is to the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet when we check the reference in the Psalms, it is found in peculiar words: “I am become a stranger unto MY BRETHREN, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN”! Without trying this thing is going to be longer than 5 or 6 pages as I want to comment on what you said about this verse. The N.T. confirms this, for in Galatians 1:19 and again in 1 Cor 15:7) we find a reference to the “Lord’s brother.^ The " brethren” of the Lord could be cousins, but the “Lord’s brother” is a dead giveaway, for this James had a special post-resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:7) for the purpose of converting him from his unbelief, recorded in John 7:5! This James is not the apostle, for all the apostles are given in 1st Cor 15:7, and the “12” are given in 1 Corinthians 15:5. You need to look up these verses as the apostles believed in him so how could they have been his brethren who didn’t believe in Him John 7:5. However your Bible like all the new bibles (for they are Roman Catholic bibles) might have conveniently changed it.
Click to expand...

This fundamentalist friend of yours . . . he wouldn’t be one of those KJV Only types who follow Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman, would he?

The material he sent you seems awfully familiar to me . . .

Blessings
 
The LXX was used by Philo and Josephus who were Jews in the 1st century. And all the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers used it many thousands of times to cite OT Scriptures. To claim that it was a Wescott and Hort thing or that it did not exist until 300 years after Paul was executed is absolutely rediculous!! Philo gives the history of the LXX in his writings, which he wrote in the early 1st century.
 
asquared said:
since there is no authoritative citation or reference for claims made by the writer, no refutation is necessary or possible. Have him provide sources, and also use an authorized translation of the Bible. On what authority does he make these claims? He had better have authentic historical documentation. Since obviously he will not be able to produce such, just dismiss it.
Click to expand...

Amen, between us, this email sounds like it is from New Age Bible Versions, by Gail Riplinger which is well known to contain hundreds of factual errors.

GAIL RIPLINGER’S FERTILE IMAGINATION
wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger2.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=New+Age+Riplinger+errors

THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION’S REPLY TO
New Age Bible Versions
kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman_pr.htm
 
In Jesus’ day the canon of the OT had not been settled. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of scripture. The Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, held that only the first five books of the Bible were Scripture. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition that is much like the Protestant one today. Finally, some Jews honored the canonical tradition that is much like the Septuagint translation of the OT.

The Greek translation was made between 250-125 BC and is known as the “Septuagint” after the Latin word for 70(LXX), which is the number of authors who compiled it.

So which canon did Jesus use?? In His time Hebrew was a dead language and most Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic, while Greek was common in the Mediterranean. So it is no surprise that all the New Testament writers used the Greek Septuagint. The vast majority of OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, even Protestant authors Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno list 340 places where the NT sited the Septuagint, as opposed to only 33 from the Hebrew canon. That’s 90% use of the Septuagint only.

In 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the Hebrew canon used by rabbinic Judaism (Those who rejected Jesus) of 39 books of OT canon. He did this because he did not like what some of the seven books had to say, like praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees.

In response to this heresy, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the 73 book canon of the Bible, including the 46 book Septuagint OT. The Catholic Church did not add the seven books, but merely reaffirmed what she had established 1200 years earlier.

Ask this question, “Would you rather use the OT used by the apostles and other NT writers, or the OT used by the Jews who later rejected Christ?”

If you follow the Septuagint you follow the apostles and other NT writers. If you follow the Hebrew you follow those who rejected Jesus and Martin Luther.
 
I’ve said it before, & I’ll say it again: the more I hear from the KJV-onlyists, the :nope: less I read the KJV.
I grew up on KJV, always loved it…And then along came the :whacky: “Alexandrian Conspiracy Theory”.
I have had to deal with these people & they are beyond fundamentalist. (I was once asked if my great-grandmother’s Dutch Bible was a KJV!!):whacky:
 
Ask your friend how he or she knows what books belong in the NT. The same councils that compiled the N.T. also compiled the O.T.

The early church had been divided about what was inspired. There were churches that rejected the book of Revelation. Others accepted the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.

The reason that a canon of Scripture even needed to be assembled, is so that the faithful would know what was to be read at Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top