Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels (A 2000 Year old Translation Speaks Volumes Toward Orthodoxy)

Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels

A 2000 year old Translation can teach more than many churches may be willing to acknowledge

Introduction

The English language has historically had an influence on the globe unlike any other. Mandarin (Chinese) through underground churches may replace it but only time will tell. Specifically the Bible translated into English has influenced the world like no other. These statements include the underlying presupposition and historical reality that the Bible has been translated into the English language and is now available in multiple versions. However, what is not stated but implied is that the scriptures were not originally given to us in English but in Greek, Hebrew (and a few sections in Aramaic). Historically speaking, these copies of Greek and Hebrew documents exist in thousands of historically verifiable copies, which you can personally see throughout the world in museums. To confuse the matter, some Christians (primarily in fundamentalism) believe and teach God has chosen to only preserve one specific NT Greek text (the Textus Receptus) and one specific OT Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text). These Greek and Hebrew texts interestingly are taught to underlie the English King James Version. Multiple King James Only writers can easily be listed by name supporting this position on preservation. My purpose here is simple: Jesus and all New Testament writers (Paul, Peter, James, and John) openly quoted from a Translation of the Hebrew text, The Septuagint. Thus, they did not believe God chose to preserve his word in the Masoretic text only (as many claim today). This position is simply false. 

My Concern

My concern (as mentioned in previous articles) is that Jesus and the apostles did not teach or practice this KJV only based idea. One such historical source for this claim refuting this KJV only thinking is the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). So what’s that have to do with anything? I thought the OT was written in Hebrew. Here’s the point: did Jesus and all the apostles believe God only preserved his word in the Masoretic text? If they did believe this, does it not stand to reason they would only quote from this God preserved Masoretic text? The Bible evidence itself shows otherwise. For this article I am sampling all fourteen Gospel references from the Septuagint to make this point. There is no evidence for God having chosen the Masoretic text. This Masoretic text position is simply an application of misused proof texts such as Mt 5:17-18 to teach God’s miraculous or even “perfect” preservation of the scriptures to include even “jots” and “tittle.” (See previous article here)

If this King James Only claim were so, then you actually have “functioning” Trinitarian problems (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Consider KJV only claims in application to the Trinity. First, God (the Father) has promised to perfectly or miraculously preserve the text of scripture. Second, God the Son (Jesus) openly quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Third, God (the Holy Spirit) by inspiration breathed out the text of scripture in both languages and holy men wrote it down. We'll have to expand on the orthodox unity within the Trinity in another article. This paper seeks to show both Jesus and all four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as all subsequent NT writers (Peter, James, and Paul), under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, openly quote from both the Septuagint (Greek translation) and the Masoretic text. The claim to know God’s word is found only in the Masoretic text is simply a believe not based on historical manuscript evidence and contrary to all biblical evidence.

The Gospel Evidence

As mentioned earlier the four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) all quote from both the Masoretic text (Hebrew) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew text). The breakdown is as follows: Matthew (6x), Mark (3x), Luke (2x), and John (3x). All 14 references come from the OT prophet Isaiah. We will examine each one as evidence that Jesus and the gospel writers did not hold to a preserved Masoretic text position. If as KJV only advocates surmise, that God has chosen to preserve only the Masoretic text, then here you have 14 references (in addition to 55 in the remaining NT books) where a LXX is used instead of the supposed preserved Masoretic text.

The Gospel of Matthew  

                                                                                          

As mentioned previously, all of Matthew’s Septuagint references come from the prophet Isaiah. Several of these quotations overlap the other three gospel writers. For sake of space I will not repeat the same proof text overview each time (but I will at least mention them to be consistent and thorough).

NT Reference	OT Reference	Explanation
Mt 1:23a	Isa 7:14	Quotation of clear term for “virgin” in Septuagint and not a more ambiguous “virgin” in Masoretic text (הָעַלְמָ֗ה)
Mt 1:23b	Isa 8:8, 10	Quotation of the specific transliterated proper noun from OT Greek text
Mt 3:3	Isa 40:3	Word for word verbatim; Masoretic text includes text not appearing in Greek text “in the desert” absent in Septuagint quotation
Mt 12:21	Isa 42:4	Word for word verbatim entirely absent in the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”
Mt 13:14-15	Isa 6:9-10	Near verbatim quotation of 47 Greek words including nouns, verbs, and articles; Masoretic text involves multiple verb tense changes, replacing of verbs for participles, and verbs for nouns.
Mt 15:8-9	Isa 29:13	There are several structural differences, the primary difference is the missing pronoun “to me” from the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint.

Now we will move to several textual examples of what the chart above shows. To be technical the references are in Greek but all you need to do is compare the shapes (letters) showing you the Greek NT text quotes the Greek translation of the Hebrew text (not the Hebrew text) which would produce a different translation. The examples come in three types: one, word for word (verbatim) proof texting, two, a specific word focus, and three, an addition or subtraction of words or phrases (in both Greek and Hebrew). These 14 references clearly point to the fact that NT writers included Septuagint word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text in their quotations. 

  

Example One Mt 3:3 and Isa 40:3,

(OT and NT) εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους

(KJV) OT “make straight (in the desert) a highway….” (KJV) NT “make his paths straight”

***Note even the English King James Version leaves out the Masoretic phrase “in the desert.”

Example two Mt 12:21 and Isa 42:4,

(OT) καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(NT) καὶ   τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(KJV) “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

***Note this entire clause is absent in the King James version Masoretic text.

Example three Mt 1:23a and Isa 7:14, (OT) παρθένος “virgin” and (NT) παρθένος “virgin”

The Gospel of Mark

As with Matthew’s quotations, all Mark’s quotes come from the prophet Isaiah. All three of Mark’s references overlap Matthew and have been discussed previously. But for sake of thoroughness, Mark 1:3 quotes Isa 40:3; Mk 4:12 quotes Isa 6:9-10, and Mk 7:6-7 quotes Isa 29:13. Again all three of these have already been addressed and Mark provides us no new pertinent information. Again, another NT writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not exclusively quote from the Masoretic text but from the Septuagint.  

The Gospel of Luke

Just as Matthew and Mark used the prophet Isaiah, Luke as well used only LXX quotes from Isaiah. Of Luke’s two quotations, only Lk 4:18-19 quoted from Isa 61:1-2 (26 total words), provides an additional unaddressed concern. Luke’s quotation of Isa 40:3-5 in Lk 3:4-6 was previously addressed in Matthew’s quotation. The Masoretic text includes one specific proper name (יְהוָ֨ה) “Yahweh” not included in the Septuagint which is noticeably absent in the King James Version NT quotation. For sake of ease, an English translations is provided.

Isa 61:1-2 “The LORD anointed me…” and Lk 4:18-19 “He anointed me…”

The Gospel of John

In similar fashion to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John also exclusively uses LXX quotations from Isaiah. Again, we have already discussed the issues with Jn 1:23 quoted from Isa 40:3 and Jn 12:40 quoted from Isa 6:10. The one example not previous addressed by any of the three synoptic gospels is Jn 12:38 quoting from Isa 53:1. The proper name “LORD” (Κύριε) and preposition τίνι (bold) are not present in the Masoretic text however it is present in the King James Version quoted portion of the Septuagint listed below.

(OT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(NT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(KJV)  --- , Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Conclusion

It serves as a good reminder when studying the scriptures, that our study is not mere academic exercise. We our studying God revealed word. His truth in the scriptures is what aids in our progressive sanctification. This growth includes the exposure of both truth and error. The error under discussion is the claim the God has promised to preserve his world miraculously or even perfectly only in the Masoretic Old Testament text.  

By way of review, all four gospel writers, when using the Septuagint, quote exclusively from the prophet Isaiah. All 14 Septuagint quotations provide a textual clue clearly different from the Masoretic text. These differences help to identify that NT writers freely and openly used both the Masoretic text and the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). This liberty of translation included word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text reflected in the Septuagint. This is clear evidence that God did not exclusively chose to preserve the text of scripture in only the Masoretic text. In addition, this claim of either perfect or miraculous preservation also places the members of the Trinity in disagreement and is obviously false as well.

The Synagogue and the Regulative Principle of Worship

The Synagogue and the Regulative Principle of Worship

Anyone familiar with the worship wars within Christian circles has no doubt come across the terms: regulative, puritan, and/or normative.  Detailed study will take students back to divisions among great reformers such as Calvin and Luther.  These divisions extend even today in the worship wars of 2016.

Despite my strong convictions as a baptist and dispensationalist there is an institution that puzzles me.  It is called the synagogue.  Consider the roots, beginning and continuation of this worship activity even up to 2016 (you'll need to  look back at the inter-testamental period).  Do we have a command to participate as Christians?  Do we have a command to worship during this event?  How did Jesus and the apostles (both before and after) his resurrection make use or participate in this worship event (this is for the publisher's red letter font is more authoritative types)?  These are truly puzzling questions to consider if we must have a command, principle, or practice to maintain these events as God ordained.

Consider the many references in the gospels to Jesus the Messiah worshipping in the Jewish synagogue.  He attended and even read scripture in their hearing.  The apostles will do the same during his life and after his bodily resurrection.

This is the beginning of thought on this matter.  There are references to the apostles going into a city and evangelizing a city starting with the synagogue.  There are multitude references to the apostles repeatedly teaching weekly at theses same events in the book of Acts.  You also have these same individuals meeting as a church elsewhere on "the first day of the week." 

Where does this fit into the worship wars?  Do we pull a mild-dispensational hermeneutic, "well that was the gospels." Problem is that it happened in the book of Acts also (including after Acts 2).  Luke especially seems to overlap with the book of Acts (same author of both books helps).  Seems to be an issue for post-Acts 2 church-birth Christianity where they are still worshipping in the synagogue.  Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, worshipped in this institution without OT command or precedent.  As far as I can tell he also never attacked or condemned the Pharisees for worshipping in the synagogue (their lifestyles and theology is another issue).

I am simply exploring how do we fit a regulative worship principle with the synagogue?  If your best exegetical response is to say, "that was Bible times" or "that was another context" then your missing the point.  It can't be only for Jews because the apostles are participating throughout the book of Acts.

If we appeal to a "transitional nature of Acts" then when did the transition stop?  The synagogue is still used today in 2016.  James actually uses this term in chapter two συναγωγή.  If you can't read greek then try to see the English gloss "synagogue."  Appears in KJV text as "assembly."

There is no command, principle or precedent for Sunday school.  Do we throw it out?  Do we keep it as a useful tool?  Who decides this, the pastor or congregation?  Do we throw out Wednesday night or Sunday night because we don't agree on how to use scriptures to defend it (or not)?  When does history have a voice in aiding our interpretation?  Must ever generation reinvent their own doctrine from scripture?  Does the current cool kid trends shape our theology and practice (think: trendy small groups)?  At what point does pragmatism take over as a hermeneutical grid to justify any means or methodology?  These are only preliminary thoughts as I look for detailed exegetical texts addressing this issue.

Thoughts encouraged.  Dialogue interesting.  Hope it helps to actually further and build up Christ's body.

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day issue (Part Four)

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day Issue (Part Four)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three   

We will take for granted that it is on the Lord's day Christians set aside a day for worship out of remembrance for the Lord's bodily resurrection from the dead, therefore we will focus on how Jesus himself observed the sabbath (technically at this point in history his bodily resurrection will not have happened yet).  This being said, what Jesus did is important for at least some of the following reasons (descriptive/or prescriptively is another matter):

1)  Many within evangelicalism function as though the "red letters" by the publisher are actually more authoritative than the surrounding "black letters."
2)  Many withing evangelicalism extract a great deal of their proof-texting for mercy and healing ministries, kingdom-now views from the gospels (well at least not the raising the dead part).
3)  Related to (number one), what Jesus actually did and said is exactly how God (in-flesh) would respond to these issues (we must remember Jesus is the second-person of the Godhead, John 1:1, 14).
Whether these views are right/wrong is not the point. The fact that people (in the church age) draw commands and/or principles from the four gospels does at least demand some attention be given to how Jesus handled the sabbath observance.

Are there principles and/or practices that are applicable for how we govern our activities on the Lord's Day?  We will consider one text in the gospels: Matthew 12.  Matthew 12 focuses on an issue of hunger and healing on the sabbath.  In a similar fashion, John 5 relates to Christ healing a man on the sabbath.  We will focus on the context of Mt 12 and hopefully extrapolate principles from this text (none of which are unique to me or to our current church situation in 2016).  No matter which text is the focus, the point is the same, Jesus actually did something on the sabbath and the Jewish leadership did not like it at all.

First, from a broader context, the gospel of Matthew neatly breaks down into five distinct discourse sections.  The most famous of these discourses being the sermon on the mount (ch. 5-7) and the olivet discourse (ch. 24-25).  Our text under consideration is found in one of the narrative sections (ch. 11-12).  We know this because the previous section ended with Mt 11:1, "when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples."  Our concern is the first thirteen verse which breaks down into the two topics of discussion: plucking grain (vv. 1-9) and healing a man's hand (vv. 10-13).

The first section, (vv. 1-9) highlights what is commonly called "works of necessity."  Eating is a necessity to continue living.  The scenario is simple.  The disciples were hungry and plucked some corn to eat on the sabbath which was noticed by the Pharisee to be in violation of their own practices (tradition) (vv. 1-2).  Jesus responses to their question with two distinct Old Testament examples: David eating food (not explicitly forbidden but only when for profit, Dt 23:25), when he was hungry (vv. 3-4) and then the activity of priests on the sabbath (v. 5).  Jesus changes the focus with a contrasting conjunction "but" switching the focus to higher and more internal heart matter.  Jesus claims deity in this passage, "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (v. 8).  This directly relates to the two previous verses: one, he is the "greater" one present and two, the changed heart condition had priority over external worship.  What needs to be noted is that Christ does not abolish the sabbath as a day of rest but instead declared himself to be it's Lord.  In this first example, works of necessity is the focus under Christ's authority over this day.

So if we draw in principles what could they be?

1) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath?
2) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus healed sick people on the Sabbath?
3) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus pointed people to himself on the Sabbath?

Historically, when people mention works of mercy or necessity, do they have fair ground to do so?

Compare this to today: (any number of illustrations will make the point)

1)  Should we go out to eat at a restaurant on the Lord's day?
2)  Should I mow the grass, hunt, fish, or trap, on the Lord's day?
3)  Should I spend hours of time involved with sporting adventures on the Lord's day?

Rarely are people actually concerned about working on the Lord's day.  Yes we could even talk about heart issues and motivations as well.  Personally, I'm glad there are police officers, firemen, and doctors who care for others seven days a week.  They are doing works of mercy and necessity for you and me (give them your thanks for it).

Are these liberty issues?  You decide.  Not matter what the example.  Someone and somewhere will always have a name to call you for anything you choose to do or not do?

May we enjoy a good Lord's day of worship each week (another topic for another thread).

These issues will have to be addressed later in liberty issues.
Hope this helps some in this issue.
Comments encouraged.