The Septuagint - Introduction

[For those who know very little about the Septuagint]

We have previously posted other pages at this website for those who already are familiar with the Septuagint. But this page is for those who have only heard the term, without knowing too much about it, we wanted to post some basic information, which can serve as a place to start.

However, it is a bit more complicated, but not because of what the Septuagint itself is, or was.

The Problem is that – just like the "missing link" in the theory of evolution, the Septuagint – in Biblical studies – remains the "missing link".

There are no parchments or manuscripts today, that can be proven to be The Text of the Septuagint.

That actually creates some problems. Some groups want very much for A septuagint to exist. The reason is that the existence of the septuagint...would potentially demonstrate that one theological group has a greater or more legitimate claim to demonstrating their own "authenticity" – than other religious groups or denominations.

The Septuagint – is thought by some...to help demonstrate authenticity and legitimacy. But obviously, without knowing exactly just what the text of the Septuagint is, it would be difficult (impossible) to trace anyone’s authenticity to a source which – even if it ever did exist – does not exist today. No copies have survived into our era.

The heart of the problem is that there does not exist a Greek Text of the OLD Testament, that is somehow different from the Old Testament that we presently have.

Sure there are manuscripts that do not agree with the Old Testament used today. For example, the Text of Ben Asher is known to have mistakes and changes that make it different from the historic Hebrew Old Testament.

But that does not prove that the Ben Asher text IS the Septuagint (for the obvious reason that the Septuagint was a translation INTO Greek FROM the Hebrew – but the Ben Asher text is simply in Hebrew). The Ben Asher text is simply wrong, since it is historically inaccurate.

A very few of the authors during the Roman Empire mentioned the Septuagint (actually, we know of only one – Aristeas -, but we concede for purposes of discussion that there may have been a few others)

The issue of the Septuagint did not become important again until the Protestants actually started looking in libraries and collecting as many of the ancient Bibles as possible. The Roman Catholic Church had forbidden anyone to own or read a Bible, but Protestants pressed on, at risk of forfeiting their life to the global Inquisition.

As these collectors continued their work (which we have access to), they did find more and more Ancient Manuscripts of the Bible. But the manuscripts that they found 99% of them (that would be 99% of Twenty Five Thousand portions of the Bible), were simply the Textus Receptus, the received text of the Bible. And this was true, whether the Bible discovered was in Old Latin, in Syriac, in Greek or other languages.

When manuscripts did Not conform to the Textus Receptus, it was still obvious that they had used the Textus Receptus in Greek as the basis for the bad manuscripts, since the rest of that manuscript agreed with the Textus Receptus, and since the changes were obvious: word omissions, verses omitted, passages crossed out, etc.

In fact the abundance of the discovery of Textus Receptus (both OT & NT) manuscripts in fact created its own problem, since every discovery made only tended to confirm that the Bible was the Bible, and that the known Text of it was well established and transmitted all over the Roman Empire (East and West) prior to 200 A.D.

These discoveries accomplished one thing (among others): they established that a DIFFERENT text of the Old Testament (which is what the Septuagint would have been) did not Exist.

[Again – for those who say that the Actual Septuagint does exist, congratulations ! simply email us and let us know which manuscripts are the Septuagint...][Each manuscript – upon discovery - is assigned a number & letter sequence and photographed to prevent tampering]

The issue of the importance of a potential Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) became important, when the Bible Translators were looking for Old Testament copies.

There are many copies of the Old Testament. But the oldest COMPLETE copy of the Old Testament is a 10^th century Hebrew Text known as the Leningrad Codex (which is commercially available today). But if this was the oldest copy of the Old Testament, then would it be possible to find OTHER copies of the Old Testament – that would be OLDER than the 10^th century ?

It was in order to answer this question, that Bible Translators in the 1700 and 1800s began to search for copies of manuscripts in Greek that they Hoped would be the Old Testament written in Greek. It was hoped that this would be an Additional source of information.

After all, if copies of the Old Testament could be found – even if written in Greek, then they could tell us what the Old Testament looked like...long before One Thousand Years after Christ (the rough date of the Leningrad Codex which was written in Hebrew).

The question was not that critically important in anycase. There were other copies of the Old Testament that were older than the Leningrad Codex (even if they were not the complete Old Testament). So there was STILL plenty of reasons to be able to conclude that the Old Testament used by the Christian Church was the same one that was used by the Jews.

So far, what should be clear is that the reason why the Septuagint was sought after is that it was thought – that it might help to authenticate the Old Testament, through the discovery of Old Testament manuscripts written in Greek.

However, let us not forget the real purpose of the Septuagint:

Its true importance is that – theoretically - it would help to establish the authenticity of the Old Testament as used by the Christian Church, and thereby demonstrate that

1) Textual Corruption in the Old Testament had not occurred and

2) The Old Testament that we have today was NOT altered by Christians to suit their own theology about Jesus Christ.

The Sea Change of the Dead Sea Scrolls

All of this changed in 1947/48 with the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The dead sea scrolls do not contain Only the Old Testament. Their collection is more broad. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls contained all of the Old Testament written in Hebrew (with the exception of Esther).

The Dead Sea Scrolls changed the world of Biblical Studies. The reason is that those Old Testament Manuscripts were dated to 200 B.C.

All of a sudden, there now was a copy of the Old Testament, and it was one thousand two hundred years older than the Leningrad Codex.

We might think that this would make the scholars overjoyed. After all, this was like discovering the Holy Grail. They had wanted to find the genuine Old Testament, and now they had succeeded.

AND...it was dated to 200 years BEFORE Christ. This meant that the Christians could not possibly have tampered with it. Christ would not be born for another 200 years, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were being handwritten.

However, many scholars were not happy with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What the Dead Sea Scrolls proved is that the Christian Church had been the faithful transmitter of the Old Testament, and that its copies were real, legitimate, and accurate.

And what Bible was closest to the Ancient Old Testament written in Hebrew ? The English copy of the Old Testament in the King James Bible.

The Scholars who wanted to disprove the Bible were extremely unhappy. They had spent so many years, and so many books explaining how Christians could not possibly be right, could not possibly be accurate. Then in one year, their pet theories, their academic careers, their books, all of these were turned upside down, when they had to admit that the Christians had been right all along.

Strangely, it looked as though God might have been sovereign after all, as if He really were watching over the process of the transmission of His word, the Bible.

Back to the Septuagint

Obviously, there was no longer any need for the Septuagint. The goal of Septuagint research had been to attempt to trace the actual Old Testament through the Greek back to its Hebrew Source, the actual Old Testament.

But when the Dead Sea Scrolls turned out to have the Actual Old Testament available,(actual copy of the OT dated to 200 BC),  there was no need for the Septuagint.

Dillemas for Scholars who hate the Bible

This caused a number of dillemas for certain scholars. This brings up the question: for which scholars ???

And the answer is: for those scholars who Wanted to undermine the Bible and Christianity, and contest the Legitimacy of the Bible itself as being God’s revealed word. Now instead of finding proof to undermine God, God had revealed to the world a copy of the Old Testament before the time of Christ.

Today, there is no need for the Septuagint. In simple terms, no one cares. Or if they do, it is for the purpose of textual studies but not for the purpose of establishing which Old Testament is the Original. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know which one is the original.

At this point in the article, a question in the mind of the reader naturally comes up:

That is true, but just because there was no actual Septuagint found did not mean that there was no speculation about it.

In order to accomplish this, they began simply using manuscripts that were rejected by the Christian Church because they were counterfeit, and calling some of those manuscripts "the Septuagint".

They took 2 of these corrupted manuscripts in particular, and began calling them "the Septuagint". The other thing that they did was simply designate them as "the most reliable".

Now these were not friends of Christianity. These authors (of whom we write) in the 1800s hated Christianity. But they wanted the praise of men and they were already working as professors in Universities, so they thought if they could get away with it, they would simply start making stuff up.

Remember: Now – After 1947 we now Know – for a fact – what the Old Testament looked like before the time of Christ. This is no longer a matter of speculation, but is instead a matter of FACT (thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Therefore, when someone of today – uses a document from the 1800s, in order to convince us that THE SEPTUAGINT must exist, and that they have found it, all we have to do, is get ahold of their Greek Old Testament text that they insist to us – is THE SEPTUAGINT (which would be the Old Testament written in Greek) – and start comparing it, with the actual text of the Old Testament in Hebrew that we have, (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) that dates to 200 B.C.

Based on this comparison, over and over, we are now able to state with great certainty, that the material which was called "The Septuagint" in the 1800s was in fact NOT the Septuagint at all...it was only wishful thinking on the part of those who were trying to undermine the Bible and historic authenticity of Christianity.

Part II

When the Septuagint is referred to today, in almost all cases, it is used and referred to by those who wish to attack one of two targets:

1. The Historic Bible, and

2. Christianity

The Septuagint starts today to take on an "ideological" framework, usually when advocated by a certain group within the Eastern Orthodox Church: That would be

Former Protestants turned Eastern Orthodox.

But this would not apply to ordinary Protestants. Those who are advocates of the Septuagint within the Eastern Orthodox Church, are not only former Protestants, but former Textual Critics. They were part of a minority within Protestantism, that although they were nominally "Christian", there were simply opposed to the Bible, and to its authentic Christian roots within the Early Church.

Those that are Eastern Orthodox today may be misguided in some aspects of their theology (at least that is our conclusion based on our studies of the ECF – Early Church Fathers).

Or to put it more accurately: Protestant Bibles are historically derived from Eastern Orthodox Greek Manuscripts, or at least from Greek Manuscripts that were found in the geographical areas that are today claimed to be largely Eastern Orthodox.

There is no evidence – that we are aware of - that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever used the Septuagint as a primary text within the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

If they had, what the archeologists and papyrus hunters would be finding...would be multiple copies of that elusive septuagint. But what Has been found...over and over, in thousands of copies, are portions of the Textus Receptus, the same standard text of the Bible that is used by Protestants.

Today, the 99% of the Greek Manuscripts that come from the Greek are known as Byzantine Manuscripts, because they follow a certain style and kind of Greek writing. These were the Bibles that were used in the Byzantine Empire. That addresses the issue of the New Testament. 

But what about the Old Testament ?

Think back for a moment to where the Protestants found their HEBREW Old Testament, which they used for the Hebrew Text of the King James.

It came from Venice, specifically from an Edition of the Hebrew Old Testament that was printed in Hebrew in 1525. Now, here is the important point:

What is the significance that it came from Venice ?

The answer is this: Venice is the place that when Byzantium fell to the Turks, the leaders of the Byzantine empire (not the formal leaders, but the bureaucrats & librarians) fled to Venice.

Venice was Free City (a City which the Pope did not control). Even in the early 1500s, Protestants were going there to be educated in Hebrew. In Venice, those Protestants met two groups of people:

1. the Jews of that day who had made Venice the world center for Judaic studies, and

2. those who had left Byzantium and had settled in Venice away from the attacks on Byzantium by the Islamists.

The Byzantine empire and the Byzantine church did not use the Septuagint. It simply used the Old Testament written in Hebrew. But today, enemies of the true Orthodox Faith, hope to change the Eastern Orthodox Church...and re-align it.

They would re-align it not with its historic roots (which is what we seek), but to the False Septuagints of the 1800s – that were used by Bible Attackers.

The Bible of the Protestants comes from Byzantine Manuscripts and manuscripts found within the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire. That is only one more reason, why we know that the Eastern Orthodox Christians practiced the true faith of the Early Church (as long as it stayed true to it).

Don’t let Bible-Attacking modern Septuagint advocates take you away from your historic heritage. It is the historic manuscripts (of the Bible) - historically used by the Eastern Orthodox - that we hope that All will return to.

What are some examples of the False Septuagint that were advocated in the 1800s ?

How can Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus be used to refer to the Septuagint , when Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus refer almost always not to the Old Testament but to the New Testament ?

There are extra books in Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in addition to New Testament books. It is these books that were arbitrarily designated to be "the Septuagint". There is ZERO proof of this being the septuagint, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contradict each other in more than 2000 places (therefore either one invalidates the other), but textual Critics [led by Westcott & Hort & Tischendorf] simply renamed these manuscripts.

It was Tischendorf who designated his rediscovered corrupt manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" - it made the manuscript seem more official.

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have been analyzed line by line. That information can be found in the book Codex B (Vaticanus) and Its Allies

The RCC and Codex Vaticanus

What is the Current position of the Roman Catholic Church 

on this issue ?

The Roman Catholic Church takes the position that Codex Vaticanus is authentic and that IT is THE Septuagint. 

Here is what the Roman Catholic "encyclopdia" [New advent] says: 

The three most celebrated manuscripts of the Septuagint known are the Vatican, "Codex Vaticanus" (fourth century); the Alexandrian, "Codex Alexandrinus" (fifth century), now in the British Museum, London; and that of Sinai, "Codex Sinaiticus" (fourth century), found by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1844 and 1849, now part at Leipzig and in part in St. Petersburg; they are all written in uncials.

The "Codex Vaticanus" is the purest of the three; it generally gives the more ancient text, while the "Codex Alexandrinus" borrows much from the hexaplar text and is changed according to the Massoretic text (The "Codex Vaticanus" is referred to by the letter B; the "Codex Alexandrinua" by the letter A, and the "Codex Sinaiticus" by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet Aleph or by S).



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm 

How would you respond to this ?

1. We would point out that the Roman Catholic Church is building on a foundation established by Protestant Bible Critics (protestants who called themselves "protestants" but in truth were atheists or God-attackers, such as Tischendorf & Westcott & Hort). 

2 .We would point out that what the article at New Advent fails to state about Codex Vaticanus is that it is not One Manuscript written by one person (and as such a complete and uniform Bible), but rather was written by at least TEN DIFFERENT persons and copyists, meaning that its text now is not even the original corrupted text, but was further altered and Tampered with by the copyists who attempted to erase the older writing. You can see in certain sections, where the older words were barely visible, but have been erased and altered with the new words added in. You can also (these days) buy your own copy of a Facsimile of Codex Vaticanus and confirm what we are saying...for yourself. 

3. We would point out that there are very few Ancient manuscripts that match the content of Codex Vaticanus. In Fact, while there are 5000 Koine Greek manuscripts, and 20 Koine Greek lectionaries containing Bible verses, the content of Codex Vaticanus agrees with only 1% of the Koine Greek Manuscripts and Disagrees with the 99% of the rest of the Koine Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. 

4. We would point out that Codex Vaticanus contains Apocryphal Books, which is a departure from the Ancient Manuscripts of the Bible. It is by renaming this specific one manuscript and re-baptizing it the "Septuagint" that the RCC then gets to say that "The Septuagint" contained Apocryphal books. This requires a mountain of textual gymnastics which are impossible to sustain. Jerome specifically states that the Apocryphal books are NOT inspired (which is also what the KJV translators stated).

8. We would point out that the article identifies the Letter of Aristeas as the author of the story on the Septuagint, and almost all other sources (about the septuagint) as being derived or traced back to the Letter of Aristeas. He was not a Christian, and he was Apocryphal, but we will have more to say about Aristeas in the Future. 

9. We would point out that the Article at New Advent states that - supposedly - the real septuagint can be found in the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla. What the article omits is that:

1. we have no existing copy of the Hexapla of Origen. It has never been recovered. 

2. We have no means of verifying what was in that 5th column of the Hexapla

3. What we do know about the Hexapla is that the 6th column was Origen's own translation

4. Origen was not a Christian (though he called himself one). His work was So dangerous that the FIFTH Ecumenical Church Council excommunicated not only Origen Himself (and declared him Anathema), but ALSO did the same to anyone who was simply   READING  the works of Origen. Origen's mother worked in Pagan Temple, and it seems that much of young Origen's time was spent learning gnostic teachings. Origen did not believe in the trinity nor in the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Creator. He believe that Jesus was simply a created being. He was - in fact - an ancient version of the Jehovah's Witnesses (who have perpetuated Origen's mistakes).

5. When Constantine commissioned 50 Bibles for the spreading of Christianity, he entrusted this task to Eusebius. Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesaria. He was the one who helped to convoke the Council of Nicea. This is the council that excommunicated Arius. But Eusebius was a follower of Arius and was almost excommunicated himself. He remained quiet though, and worked to subvert the Official church started by Constantine. {Eusebius was also the one who recommended to Constantine that this emperor NOT be saved, but should remain a Pagan, until his dying days. This is exactly what Constantine did, which is amazing that a bishop would recommend that one of his flock would remain potentially Lost for Eternity, but this is what Eusebius did}.

Eusebius believed both that Origen and Arius were right.  The works of Origen were not located in the library of Alexandria. Alexandria was where Origen had worked, but his actual work was stored at the library at Caesaria, where Eusebius was Bishop. 

When Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce his 50 Bibles, Eusebius went to the work of Origen and copied Origen's translation of the Greek New Testament. IT is this 6th Column (not the 5th) in the Hexapla of Origen, that actually IS Codex Vaticanus.  

Codex Vaticanus is known to have been one of the 50 Bibles of Origen. Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus are also in that family of manuscripts. 

But because the churches around the world previously established by the Apostles (and totally independent of the Bishop of Rome), they Already had the genuine New Testament. 

We know today what the contents of some of Origen's New Testament were, because he wrote so much, and because he translated and copied his own Bible version within his works. The work of Origen agrees with Codex Vaticanus. The 5th Church Ecumenical Church Council BANNED the work of Origen. 

Would they have done this, especially as a Church Council, with dozens of Pastors from all over the Roman Empire, if Origen had been either a Christian or promoting an accurate New Testament ?  No, they knew that He was Origen was a NeoPagan Gnostic, dedicated to overthrowing the teachings of Christ. 

These days - in churches that are insufficiently knowlegeable about History and about the Bible, the work of Origen is praised, studied, and promoted. In so doing, the work of the Alexandrian gnostics continues.

The real question is whether the Church authenticates the Bible and decides what its contents should be, or whether the Bible authenticates the Church and decides what its churches should be.  

Students of the Bible and those who believe that it should be taken literally (meaning that the words and teachings of Jesus should be taken literally when possible) - especially since any decision to take it only figuratively is THE decision which opens the Bible to a thousand interpretations. Taking the Bible literally means that it is much easier and factually correct, to ascertain what the meaning of the words are. 

The complexity that supposedly exists, fades rather quickly when the Bible is simply given the weight of the Bible verses, 99% of which can be taken a face-value. 

If the Church decides what the bible should be, what makes up the church ends up being defined in human political and temporal terms outside of the Bible. Obviously, the composition of the church (and who its members are) could not be decided upon the basis of what the Bible teaches about that, since The contents of the Bible are not able to have a judgement passed on them, without first deciding on the makeup of the church. This is the perspective adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. 

It has always been a matter of convenience for those running the RCC to proclaim that they are the final judges and arbiters of all things spiritual. But even this teaching is an historical INNOVATION, absent in the history of Early Christianity which existed Far outside of the reach of the Roman Catholic Church, which had not even been born. 

However, those who read the Bible come away with a different understanding of the Bible than the RCC, that being that first the Words of Jesus and his commandments of love are to be 1) taken literally and 2) obeyed.  Many have heard that the Bible is the standard for matters of Faith and practice. If that is truly and literally the case, this means that the Bible and the Bible AS THE FINAL authority...is the basis for deciding issues of Faith and Practice. In other words, the Bible is a book which includes its own meanings, its own definitions and its own doctrines, within its own pages. The reason why there are so many controversies about this is not because there are so many different meanings or interpretations, but rather that people do not wish to bind themselves to what the Bible says. 

The confusion is artificial. The refusal to follow the words and teachings of Jesus, that -  is actual.

Why are you placing this question here in the Orthodox section (since you mention RCC here specifically) ?

- because we receive questions from both Orthodox and Roman Catholics, so this seemed a good place.

THE LATIN VULGATE

True History of the Latin Vulgate Version of the Bible

Please Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe

Is not correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.

Thank you

(XOFC Staff)

EMAIL US

contact us HERE

If you Disagree