In this section, I wish to highlight a few translation issues that point to a disturbing conclusion.
First though, a brief historical overview of how the Septuagint came into being may be helpful.
There is considerable debate about how the Septuagint came into being. The generally accepted view is that the Torah (or Pentateuch - the first 5 Books of Moses) was translated into Greek (in the 3rd century BCE) by Ptolemy III. King Ptolemy (in Alexandria, Egypt) apparently gathered seventy-two sages and placed them in seventy-two houses without telling them why he had brought them together. He went to each one of them and told him, "translate for me [into Greek] the Torah of your master Moses.”[1]
This was the first translation in Jewish history. The Greeks were people who valued education and intellectual pursuits ― something the Jews also valued and very much admired. Many of Jews also saw the Greek language as a beautiful language.
However, today many Jewish scholars and leaders believe this was a national disaster for the Jewish people. In the hands of the non-Jewish world, the now accessible Hebrew Bible has often been used against the Jews, and has been deliberately mistranslated.
In fact, this event is also recorded as an awful tragedy in Megillat Taanit, composed during Mishnaic times, not more than a century or two after the fact[2].
It is not known exactly when the other books of the Hebrew Bible (OT) were translated into Greek and became part of what is considered the Septuagint today, but it appears the first versions were produced before Second Temple times (that is, before the birth of Yeshua).
“The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era.” (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.)
“The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era.” (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.)
“The (Septuagint) translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah.”[3]
It appears that the NT has been significantly altered in a number of key areas. Those areas are scriptures that are used by the church as support for a number of uniquely Christian doctrines; such as, doctrines of atonement; doctrines of exclusiveness; doctrines which seek to separate the Church from its Jewish/Hebraic heritage and doctrines that argue for the abolition of the Torah and the role of repentance in salvation.
These alterations appear to have been ‘supported’ by both the use of the Septuagint, and the alteration of the Septuagint, so that it conforms to the new ‘translations’ of the NT.
Thus, in this section I will introduce a few of these translation issues as well as some of the evidence for the redaction of the Septuagint.
Translation Issues:
Luke 4:16-19
“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.’”[4]
This passage was discussed in the introduction. To summarise, the phrase “and release from darkness for the prisoners;…” (quoting from Isaiah 61) has been replaced with “… recovery of sight to the blind; …”
Luke, as Flusser so ably demonstrates (see ‘Jesus’ by Prof. David Flusser, p50), first wrote in Hebrew about an event in a Hebrew synagogue, where Yeshua read from a Hebrew scroll. The Septuagint would NOT have been used in these circumstances, and so the conclusion has to be that a deliberate re-daction has been made of Luke’s gospel, so that Luke appears to quote from the LXX.
Romans 3: 10-18:
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
This passage is perhaps among the very best evidence that the use of the LXX in the NT demonstrates deliberate tampering of a most serious kind. The problem here though is difficult to spot for those of us who do not speak Greek and Hebrew.
I will endeavour to highlight and summarise the issue though, and pray for your patience and indulgence as we wait for Frank Selch to publish his article titled ‘The Enigma of Romans 3:10-18’[5] which addresses this passage’s problems in great depth.
This passage is unusual to begin with in that it is a construct from several verses in the Tanakh. The problem is that these verses have been taken totally out of context.
The passage then becomes even more problematic, in that some of these verses appear to have then been joined together in Psalm 14 of the Septuagint. That is, it appears an editor or editors have altered the Septuagint (or at least some of the versions of it that we now have), so that it now has an exact copy of the NT passage.
Consider v10:
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
This passage from the NT is supposed to be a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the Tanakh. However, it is not a quote from the Tanakh. Nowhere does the Tanakh say that there is no one who is righteous.
The Tanakh does state that there is no one who does good:
Psalms 14: 1, 3-4
1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.
4 Do all the workers of wickedness not know, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord?
5 There they are in great dread; For God is with the righteous generation
Verse 1 doesn’t just say though that there is no one who does good, that’s only the last part of the verse. How does the verse start out? It is the fool who says there is no God – it is the fool who is wicked and there is not one person who says this who is good.
Look carefully at v4. This further emphasizes that those who do not do good are the wicked. In other words, the statement is not universal; there are righteous (non-wicked) who do good. We then see in Ps 14:5 that they are in fact many who are righteous.
The following are just some scriptures that attest to this:
Genesis 6:9
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.
Genesis 7:1
Then the Lord said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.
Exodus 23:7
Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.
Numbers 32:11-12
11 'None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully,
12 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have followed the Lord fully.'
1 Kings 14:8
and tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you--yet you have not been like My servant David, who kept My commandments and who followed Me with all his heart, to do only that which was right in My sight;
1 Kings 15:5
because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
2 Kings 23:25
Before him there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.
Psalms 97:10-12
10 Hate evil, you who love the Lord, Who preserves the souls of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
11 Light is sown like seed for the righteous and gladness for the upright in heart.
12 Be glad in the Lord, you righteous ones, and give thanks to His holy name.
Psalms 106:3
How blessed are those who keep justice, who practice righteousness at all times!
Proverbs 13:5-6
5 A righteous man hates falsehood, but a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully.
6 Righteousness guards the one whose way is blameless, But wickedness subverts the sinner.
Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.
Jeremiah 20:12
Yet, O Lord of hosts, You who test the righteous, Who see the mind and the heart; let me see Your vengeance on them; For to You I have set forth my cause.
Psalms 32:11
Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart.
There is however a passage in the Tanakh that states that there is no one who does good. It is Ecclesiastes 7:20 “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.”
Here we can see that people can be righteous even though there is no one who is always good.
Righteousness is not about perfection, it’s about a connection with God that brings a swift response of repentance upon the understanding that transgression has taken place.
Now, you may start to see some of the anomalies or contradictions evident in the NT, and even in the same epistle. For example we read in Romans 1:17, the Apostle Paul endorsing Habbakuk, and quoting Hab 2:4 ‘…but the just [righteous] shall live by his faith[fullness]… ‘. If we were to take Romans 3:10 as correctly quoting scripture, we would appear to have a serious contradiction here.
It could be possible that Ps 143:2 was the scripture being referred to in Romans 3:10: ‘Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous.‘ Frank Selch points out though that the Hebrew does not say ‘in your sight’ but ‘before your face’. We can perhaps now recognize that in this context, that is, when compared with the righteous of the Almighty, no man’s righteous comes close; it is cast into such a shadow as to make this a valid comparative statement. To repeat there are a great many scriptures that indicate that there are righteous amongst the living.
The next verse (v11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.) is just as problematic.
Consider the cry of King David (Ps 27:8) ‘When You said, “Seek My face”, my heart said to You, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.”, and (Ps 40:16) ‘Let all those who seek You rejoice and be glad in You; let such as love Your salvation say continually, “The Lord be magnified!”.
Also Isaiah writes, ‘With my soul I have desired You in the night, yes, by my spirit within me I will seek You early…’ Isa 26:9 and ‘Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, you who seek the Lord…’ Isa. 51:1.
Note also that v 12 states that there is not a single person who does good as well as yet in 2 Kings 22:2 we read: ‘And he (Josiah) did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.’
Consider also all those of faith mentioned on Hebrews 11; the parents of John the Baptists, Zechariah and Elizabeth, Anna the prophetess, Simon, the disciples and all their converts.
Clearly, this reference if truly from the Tanakh (possibly from Ps 14), and actually written by the Apostle Paul, must only refer to Gentiles, to unbelievers, not to the righteous men and women of faith. Yet, when we read this reference in its context in Romans 3, especially the context of the verses immediately following, we get a very different picture.
We get an argument that appears to argue against these men and women of faith and against the power of Torah to bring repentance, righteousness and salvation. The signs of corruption and deliberate distortion become increasingly evident.
Now we came to the most glaring deception, so powerful that many see it as in fact very strong evidence that the NT did quote from the LXX!
Research a few well known scholars who have written commentaries on Romans and you will likely find many stating that in Romans 3: 10-18 the Apostle Paul has quoted excerpts from a number of different places in the Tanakh (including Ps. 14:1-3; Ps 5:9; Ps. 10:7; Isa. 59:7,8; Ps. 36:1).
You might also find though some like the famous Adam Clarke (1762–1832)[6] indicating that Romams 3:13-18 is in fact a direct quote of Ps 14 in the Septuagint: “This and all the following verses to the end of the 18th Romans 3:13-18 are found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew text; and it is most evident that it was from this version that the apostle quoted, as the verses cannot be found in any other place with so near an approximation to the apostle's meaning and words.”
Note that Adam Clarke states ‘with so near an approximation’, yet the Greek versions are not just close they are identical!
Quoting Frank Selch (The Enigma of Romans 3:10-18):
“The LXX came into being approx. 200 plus years before the Christian era. Is it at all feasible that Psalm 13 [Masoretic Psalm14] contained that inclusion which is there today? In all likelihood no, since the verses are a collection from other Psalms and wisdom writings and need not be there.
The following segment from Romans 3:13-18 is from the NKJV:
‘Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.’
And this one is a copy of Psalm 14:3 [Ps.13 in the Greek text] from the ‘English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, The Translation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures, Including the Apocrypha’; as compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
‘Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit the poison of asps is under their lips whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known there is no fear of God before their eyes.’
Here is the Greek text of Romans 3:13-18
τάφος νε γμένος ὁ λάρυγξ α τῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις α τῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, ἰὸς σπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη α τῶν·ὧν τὸ στόμα ρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες α τῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ αλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς α τῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης ο κ ἔγνωσαν ο κ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ πέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν α τῶν.
And here is the text of Psalm 14:3b [13] form the LXX
‘…τάφος νε γμένος ὁ λάρυγξ α τῶν ταῖς γλώςαις α τῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν ἰὸς σπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη α τῶν ὧν τὸ στόμα ρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες α τῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς α τῶν καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης ο κ ἔγνωσαν ο κ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ πέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν α τῶν.
The two portions are identical!”
So, is this a slam dunk proof that the LXX was indeed used after all (as most Christian scholars have indeed argued for a great many years)?
NO!
Because even Adam Clarke went on to state: “The verses in question, however, are not found in the Alexandrian MS. But they exist in the Vulgate, the AEthiopic, and the Arabic. As the most ancient copies of the Septuagint do not contain these verses, some contend that the apostle has quoted them from different parts of Scripture; and later transcribers of the Septuagint, finding that the 10th, 11th, and 12th, verses were quoted from the xivth Psalm, Ps 14:10-12 imagined that the rest were found originally there too, and so incorporated them in their copies, from the apostle's text.”[7],[8]
Pause and consider carefully. Adam Clarke acknowledges (and this was over 150 years ago!) that the earliest versions of the LXX (first compiled in Alexandria), do not contain this portion that is so perfectly quoted in Romans 3! That is, the Romans 3 quote we have today has been added by the translators at some stage. It is not a translation of the original, it is not inspired by any stretch of the imagination, but instead a great forgery (however well intentioned the editors may have been in their redaction)!
Have others noted this before? Yes, Douglas Moo's opinion (from his NICNT commentary, ‘The Epistle To the Romans’, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) writes: “The inclusion of Romans 3:13-18 in several MSS of the LXX of Psalm 14 is a striking example of the influence of Christian scribes on the transmission of the LXX. (See S-H for a thorough discussion). (p. 203, fn. 28) [S-H refers to A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902)]”
Douglas Moo is stating that the Septuagint's rendering in Psalm 14:3 is a direct insertion copied back from Romans 3:13-18 by Christian editors and translators.
Clearly something very deliberate and most questionable is evident here.
Further, very few if any Hebrew manuscripts have this version of Ps 14. The Dead Sea Scrolls portion 11QPs(c) contains Ps. 14:1-6 in Hebrew. Below is a translation in English of this Psalm:
Psalm 14:
1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God”. They are corrupt, they commit vile wickedness; there is no one who does good.
2 YHWH looks down from heaven upon humankind to see if there are any who are wise, any who seek after God.
3 They have all gone astray; they are all alike corrupt; there is no one who does good – no, not even one.
4 Do they never learn, all those evildoers who devour my people as humans eat bread, and who do not call upon the YHWH?
5 Toward this place they will be in mighty dread, for God is with the company of the righteous.
6 You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but YHWH is their refuge.
- See p 515 ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible’ Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich 1999
Given the existence of this Hebrew version of Ps 14 at the time that the Apostle Paul first wrote Romans, and given the evidence I have referred to that indicates that Hebrew was both the main spoken language in Israel during the Second Temple period[9], and the language in which the Jewish scribes and the Jewish authors of the NT wrote; then this is much more likely the version that Paul would have quoted.
So, we might ask again at this point, why was this deliberate change made to the Septuagint and the NT, and what are the implications and ramifications of this deliberate tampering with versions of the LXX and it would appear by inference, the NT?
I will address this in the last section of this article, but put bluntly, it all comes back to doctrine, to the deliberate attempt to write into the NT, the doctrines of men rather than accept the doctrines and teachings (Torah) of the Almighty and His Messiah!
Hebrews 10:5-7:
In the middle of this quote from the Tanakh are the words “… Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” (v5).
However, the correct words here are : “Sacrifices and grain offerings you don't want; burnt offerings and sin offerings you don't demand. Instead, you have given me open ears;” - see JPS Tanakh, 1917 edition.
Check this out in your favourite version of the Bible – in most, if not virtually all, you will find the corrupted version in Hebrews and something very similar to the Tanakh version (taken from the Masoretic Hebrew text) above in your ‘Old Testament’ section of the same Bible!
You might well ask, how come the same version of the Bible uses a quote of the OT in the NT which doesn’t match with it’s own OT version? Is this carelessness, a conspiracy or what?
Also where did the text ‘but a body you prepared for me’ actually come from?
It appears that some versions of the Septuagint have this rendition. Here perhaps, you may start to see part of the problem that scholars like the late Professor David Flusser have so effectively illustrated.
To repeat, the NT and Septuagint we have today have both seen some serious redacting (‘editorial licence’), and it appears that these changes have been made to support doctrinal positions of Christian theologians.
Consider Luke 11:20 “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
“In Hebrew the nomen regens [governing noun] would appear in the construct or with a suffix and hence would be anarthrous [without an article]. In the NT this Semitic construction makes its influence felt especially where a Semitic original lies behind the Greek (hence “translation-Semitisms”), but occasionally also elsewhere in Semitizing formulae (“Septuagintisms”).
Although scholars recognize the numerous Semitisms in Luke’s gospel, explanations vary as to whether Lukan Semitisms are a result of the evangelist’s imitation of Septuagintal Greek or whether the idioms attest to a Semitic undertext. In Exodus 31:18 the expression “finger of God” appears in connection with the inscription of the Torah upon stone tablets.
There, as in Luke 11:20, “finger” appears in the instrumental case, אלהים באצבע (be-etsba elohim, by the finger of God). Yet, in the Septuagint’s translation of Exodus 31:18, “finger” is not anarthrous, but occurs in good Greek style, with the article—τῷ δακτύλ τοῦ θεοῦ (to daktylo tou theou, literally, “by the finger of the God”)[10].
If the Semitism of Luke 11:20 is a result of Luke’s imitation of the Septuagint’s style, as most scholars claim, then how is it that Luke’s idiom is more Hebraic than the Septuagint upon which he supposedly relies? The evidence suggests that this is not a Septuagintism but, in Blass and Debrunner’s words, a “translation-Semitism.” That is, Luke’s text seems to rest upon a literal translation of a Hebrew source.
I would like to conclude this section with what is possibly the strongest and yet most basic and fundamental proof that the Septuagint was not an inspired version of the Tanakh (or even of the Pentateuch), and that, if we believe the NT to be inspired in its original version (autographs) it also could not have used the LXX as its base text of the Tanakh.
I would like to conclude this section with what is possibly the strongest and yet most basic and fundamental proof that the Septuagint was not an inspired version of the Tanakh (or even of the Pentateuch), and that, if we believe the NT to be inspired in its original version (autographs) it also could not have used the LXX as its base text of the Tanakh.
Certain words, being so unique to a culture and language, lose meaning on translation. Thus we have a question as to how to deal with translating a word that is unique in the language being translated from. Normally, the use of a ‘loan’ word or some other word close in meaning may suffice. What about when the word in question is the very special Name of the Creator.
This question and argument[11] is a result of the uniqueness of the name of the Almighty, the tetragrammaton, YHWH. It is also founded in the absolute holiness of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Name of God:
God is infinite. That does not mean that He is simply everywhere (in space) because the Almighty is out of space and time, as He created space and time. As the maker of this Universe we inhabit, He can be in the past, the present and the future, as He exists outside of ALL time.
As we though, are limited both in our physical nature and in a Universe limited in space and time, it is really impossible for us to grasp anything close to the full nature of who our Creator is. Our finite minds, in attempting to describe, or even just give a name to the Almighty, are faced with an inadequacy of language and thought.
The Almighty, also tells us He is Holy. That is, He is separate. No ‘thing’ is this created Universe is totally separated from every or any other ‘thing’. In fact, all our physical bodies contain matter created from the light that was present at the very beginning of creation.
We might wonder how the Almighty might try to share with us finite creatures some sense of His uniqueness; His Holiness and His ‘beyond time’ eternal nature.
It appears He has in fact given us a name that helps to identify Him in this way. That name is YHWH[12] (the Hebrews letters, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh).
It is intriguing that He gave this name to Moses but that, even though He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He did not share this Name with them. We learn this from Exodus 6:2-3: “God spoke to Moses; he said to him, "I am YHWH. I appeared to Avraham, Yitz'chak and Ya'akov as El Shaddai, although I did not make myself known to them by my name, YHWH.” (CJB)
This incredible name was given to Moses and the Jewish people when the Almighty ‘separated’ them unto Himself. He made them Holy. He made them a Holy Nation.
It seems to me, that part of His sharing with them His unique name, was to remind them of their separation from the world (so that they could be a light unto the world). This name, YHWH can not be translated into any other language on the planet. It has no simple meaning. While it includes meanings like Lord or Master, it goes way beyond such meanings.
Thus the translation of YHWH into the Greek word ‘kurios’ or into English as LORD must inevitably lose some of its inspiration and power.
The use of the name YHWH should, in a strange way perhaps, also distance us from the Almighty to remind us of our limitations, which in turn should encourage a greater dependence on the infinite, eternal God Himself. This in turn helps lead us on the path of our ultimate task – to build the best relationship we can we our Holy God; a relationship which in turn requires us to become increasingly holy[13].
What does the Tanakh tell us about the reverence we should have for this unique name? In Deuteronomy 32:3 we learn: "For I will proclaim the name of YHWH. Come, declare the greatness of our God!
And in Deuteronomy 28:58 "[You must] fear this glorious, awesome Name, YHWH your God".
In Malachi we learn also of the respect and honour we must give this name: “For the day is coming, burning like a furnace, when all the proud and evildoers will be stubble; the day that is coming will set them ablaze," says YHWH of Hosts, "and leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But to you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will break out leaping, like calves released from the stall. 3 You will trample the wicked, they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I take action," says YHWH of Hosts. 4 "Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, which I enjoined on him at Horev, laws and rulings for all Isra'el.” (Mal 4:1-4).
Also the high priest in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, wore a gold plate on his forehead - upon which was written the Name (YHWH) of God.
The Talmud says that while wearing this plate, the high priest was required to continuously concentrate on the Name of God written there.
So it seems that although God Himself is unknowable and unnameable in any absolute sense (we can’t pidgeon-hole Him, or label and discard Him) the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, is the highest declaration of His majesty, eternity and holiness in all creation. It is therefore considered most sacred.
So when this scared name is replaced by ‘kurios’ in the Septuagint, it is replaced by a name that does not carry the same inspiration and authority. It is replaced by a name that is used many times to refer to human ‘masters’, not just to the Almighty. In a very similar way, when it is replaced in English by Lord (in the KJV by LORD – i.e. in uppercase), the same problem occurs. The name of the Almighty has lost something of its sacredness and holiness (separation).
As Frank Selch states so eloquently and emphatically in ‘The Kyrios Question’ (Sept 2011)
“God is the Master of the human race, but the term Master is unfitting for Him because He is someone no human being can ever hope to emulate in full. The Eternal One also said, ‘My glory I will not give to another…’ (Isa.42:8; 48:11), which makes the Greek ‘kyrios’ an unfitting title for the Sovereign of the Universe, because it is a title that can be applied to virtually anyone as the Bible has demonstrated.
The term YHWH is unique, it is absolutely holy, because it belongs to One alone and He alone is the Asher Ehye Asher Ehyeh (Exod. 3:14) Who defined Himself as YHWH for all eternity. That term also cannot be adequately translated into Greek or any other language.
None of these titles that God set apart for Himself are meant to be translated, because once they are, they will lose their intrinsic and absolute holiness that is reserved for the Only ONE Who Is ONE!”
The clear implication here is that IF the New Testament when first written (that is, the original autographs), was inspired and inerrant, THEN the authors would not, and could not, possibly have quoted from a Greek translation such as the Septuagint, or from any other translation such as Aramaic or Latin. To do so would have been to lose the imprimatur of the King of the Universe and hence to lose His absolute inspiration and power.
As I believe in the inspiration of the NT autographs, I am convinced that they did NOT use the LXX as their Hebrew Scripture base text.
Addressing some counter arguments:
Before discussing the implications of this understanding I would like to briefly address some of the arguments made in Mr David Maas’ article The “Hebraic Roots” Regression to Moses: The Peril of Rewriting Scripture’ published in ‘Focus on the Kingdom’ August 2011.
Firstly, Maas makes a big point of the lack of Hebrew terms in the Greek NT. Surely it is not at all surprising that a Greek translation uses Greek words for common concepts such as God, Master (Lord), and even the Messiah’s name. All languages have appropriate words for most of these terms. The more telling problem here is the lack of appropriate words for YHWH (translated into ‘kyrios’ – see discussion above) and Torah (translated into ‘nomos’ i.e. law)[14].
Maas goes on to argue that Stephen (Acts 6:1-6) must have spoken some Greek. While he quite likely did, as many were multi-lingual[15], Maas shows a lack of depth in his understanding of Second Temple times here. He assumes that the group of ‘Hellenized Jews’ mentioned here were Greek speaking.
Some appreciation of the chronology of the early Christian period may help here. Scholars believe that the martyrdom of Stephen occurred in 32 or 35 CE[16]
It was not until some 10 years later (around 45 CE) that we have the events at Cornelius’ house. These events marked the first time that Gentiles were becoming part of the community of faith without becoming Jewish. This was a considerable challenge to the Apostles[17].
Together, this is strong evidence that the Hellenized Jews[18] were not Greek and were most likely still speaking Hebrew as their main language.
So while there is evidence that many were able to speak Greek, there is actually little explicit evidence that they actually did so at all frequently. This is especially so for the more religious Israelites like the Pharisees and Yeshua’s followers. As lovers of Torah, they celebrated Hanukah every year (John 10:22-23), a festival that remembered the overthrow of the Hellenistic King Antiochus IV Epiphanes and a return to Hebraic and Biblical practice. If these Hellenized Jews were also followers of Yeshua, they too would have been developing their appreciation of Torah and turning from their Greek ways.
Maas goes on to argue that the early church had no hesitation in using Greek and other non-Hebraic terms. The real question here is what does the evidence indicate and chronologically where does this evidence come from? Well, they are clearly significant difficulties here in having accurate information but the earliest accepted NT manuscript fragment (P52 -a portion of John’s Gospel) is dated around 117-138 CE[19].
There is now considerable evidence that the ‘Christian Church’ separated from its Jewish roots in a major way sometime after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) and the time of the Council of Yavne (around 80 CE).
Because of the real paucity of original documentation from 61 CE to around 100 CE, it is difficult to be sure when the significant shift in the Gentile Churches doctrinal position began (as evidenced by the writings of Clement[20]) but it was clearly well entrenched by as early as 120-140 CE.
Therefore, any writings of ‘Church Fathers’ and others, if written after 100 – 140 CE would understandably be in Greek as the church had become Hellenized by this time. Even the Didache (a Greek document), which may have been written as early as 100 CE was largely based on Hebrew originals and sources. A Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls document which scholars have named ‘The Two Ways’ has been uncovered from which the Didache has copied/translated without substantial changes (see Didache 3:1-6 for example)[21].
David Maas argues that the Didache (written in Greek) quotes passages from the ‘Greek’ NT. While the NT autographs were written before the Didache, the ‘Greek’ Didache is, In a number of places quoting from Hebrew sources and is therefore clearly a translation (at least in part). Therefore it offers no support whatsoever to the contention that the NT was first written in Greek.
In fact, when we add the Didache to the apocryphal books 1 Maccabees, Ben Sira, Judith, Tobit as well as Jubilees, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (which, as discussed earlier, were all thought to be originally Greek documents as that was all that had been found), we have a lot of Hebrew documents thought to have been written in Greek. That is, scholars have found that most Hebrew documents written in Israel in the Intertestamental period and at least up to 100 CE, were written in Hebrew. The NT is also a Hebrew document based on Hebrew sources written initially for a Hebrew audience. Likewise, it makes sense that it was also written in Hebrew, not originally in Greek.
To reiterate Flusser, ‘… the Greek gospels which have come down to us represent a third or fourth stage in the written transmission of accounts of the life of Yeshua.’
Maas then indicates that “all surviving ancient manuscripts of the NT or part thereof are in Greek”. This is true, but hopefully when you reflect upon all the many thousands of these manuscripts or fragments being different from each other (see Part 3) and the evidence that I have presented of deliberate distortions and the disturbing anti-semitic actions of the translators, is it not at all surprising that we have no Hebrew originals? The ‘Church’ has clearly had a vested interest in there being none to find. Sadly, it seems most of today’s Christian apologists also have the same vested interest. The great majority certainly display a Replacement Theology’ perspective (as does Maas), as well as a strongly Hellenistic rather than Hebraic spirit.
It is also possible that the Hebrew versions were so popular in the early days of the movement that they were simply worn out from overuse. Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
There is much more that could be said about Maas article but I will finish here with just two points regarding his inferences. He argues that “… In light of Jesus’ command to preach the Gospel to all the nations, writing or translating the church’s core documents into Hebrew would make little sense.”!
Yeshua came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, a people who spoke Hebrew. The Gentiles who joined or were grafted into this ‘cultivated Olive Tree’ were, at least in the early days of the ‘church’ ‘God-fearers’, that is Gentiles who attended the Jewish synagogues where Hebrew was read and spoken.
The most foundational ‘Church’ document is the Tanakh, that is the Scripture that the Apostle Paul referred to in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 “From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Given that Paul’s letters were most likely written sometime between 50 – 60 CE, and most of the NT between 50-70 CE, it is clear that the Apostle Paul was not referring to the NT.
This ‘core’ document was originally written in Hebrew. Given all that has now been learned about these Hebrew disciples of a Hebrew Messiah, anointed by a Hebrew God, the God of Israel, writing the NT in Hebrew seems to make a lot of sense!
It is disappointing to see a scholar like Maas resort to the fallacious ‘Ad Hominem’ approach when he describes those like me, who argue for Hebrew autographs for the NT as having a ‘Satanic agenda’. He argues that if our position, in rejecting the NT as having been inspired in Greek, is accepted then ‘… believers will have almost nothing to stand on …”.
What about being like the Bereans?! What about the Tanakh that Yeshua did not come to destroy but to complete?! What about Yeshua himself?!
In fact, in acknowledging the contradictions and falsehoods that clearly exist in the NT documents as we have them today, we can come to a greater appreciation and understanding of the incredible truths that the NT does illuminate for us.
[5] Most of my comments here come from Frank Selch’s research and commentary
[6] Adam Clarke’s commentary on the entire Bible took him 40 years to write!
[8] These 5 verses are also found in the Peshitta (Aramaic) version of Romans 3.
[9] “The spoken languages among the Jews of that period [at the time of Jesus] were Hebrew, Aramaic, and to an extent Greek. Until recently, it was believed by numerous scholars that the language spoken by Jesus' disciples was Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did, from time to time, make use of the Aramaic language. But during that period Hebrew was both the daily language and the language of study. The Gospel of Mark contains a few Aramaic words, and this was what misled scholars.
Today, after the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of the Bar Kochba Letters, and in light of more profound studies of the language of the Jewish Sages, it is accepted that most people were fluent in Hebrew. The Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the lower strata of the population. The parables in the Rabbinic literature, on the other hand, were delivered in Hebrew in all periods. There is thus no ground for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew; and when we are told (Acts 21:40) that Paul spoke Hebrew, we should take this piece of information at face value.
Today, after the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of the Bar Kochba Letters, and in light of more profound studies of the language of the Jewish Sages, it is accepted that most people were fluent in Hebrew. The Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the lower strata of the population. The parables in the Rabbinic literature, on the other hand, were delivered in Hebrew in all periods. There is thus no ground for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew; and when we are told (Acts 21:40) that Paul spoke Hebrew, we should take this piece of information at face value.
"This question of the spoken language is especially important for understanding the doctrines of Jesus. There are sayings of Jesus which can be rendered both in Hebrew and Aramaic; but there are some which can only be rendered into Hebrew, and none of them can be rendered only in Aramaic. One can thus demonstrate the Hebrew origins of the Gospels by retranslating them into Hebrew.
"It appears that the earliest documents concerning Jesus were written works, taken down by his disciples after his death. Their language was early Rabbinic Hebrew with strong undercurrents of Biblical Hebrew.” - ‘Jewish Sources in Early Christianity’, by David Flusser, Adama Books, pages 11-12
[11] I am also indebted to Frank Selch for this incredible insight, which I believe HaShem blessed him with.
[12] That name is really a combination of three Hebrew words: Haya, Hoveh and Yeheyeh – past, present, and future. The idea isn’t just that God was is and always will be, but that He transcends time. In other words, God exists in the past, present and future -- simultaneously. - http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/69739762.html
[13] The great Rabbis state that Holiness is separating ourselves from immorality.
[14] The words ‘nomos’ in Greek and ‘law’ in English fail totally to do justice as translations of the word ‘Torah’ in Hebrew. Please see ‘Torah: Mosaic Law or Divine Instructions’ by Frank Selch for details on this very significant point.
[15] See footnote 21: “The spoken languages among the Jews of that period [at the time of Jesus] were Hebrew, Aramaic, and to an extent Greek …”
[18] That is, Jews who embraced the culture of Greece, but still lived in Israel, a Hebrew speaking land.
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
[20] This dramatic shift was well entrenched by the time Clement wrote: "If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward." (2nd Clement 9.5). This was sometime between 100-140 CE.
[21] ‘Judaism and the Origins of Christianity’ (1988) by David Flusser p 487, 499 “There is no doubt that the tractate of the Two Ways betrays literary affinities with the Essene Manual of Discipline. So e.g., immediately after Didache 3:1-6 which we have already treated above, a short passage follows (Did. 3:l-8a) which is mainly a Greek translation of a Hebrew list derived from 1QS 4:3.”
No comments:
Post a Comment