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.
Just for reference, compare this to another Christian college, well-known for their KJV only position. Pensacola Christian College states on scripture, it is "without error in the original autographs" and preservation occurring "in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts." Both statements fitting within historic Christianity on this issue. Or specifically concerning this English issue, "the Authorized Version (KJV) is an accurate English translation." Again, a good statement but in practice does that mean a student can use another good English translation? Specifically in their handbook students are told to bring a Bible (KJV). Notice the difference between the two options. 
