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 Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).