Conventional wisdom (politically correct theology and church history)
states that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint (a Greek
translation of the Old Testament done about 200 B.C.) as their daily Bible
and quoted from it often in the New Testament. Upon what is this statement
based? Does Christ or the apostles ever say that they are quoting the
Septuagint? The answer is clearly NO! Yet it is not hard to see that the
"conventional wisdom" is dogmatic - that Christ and the apostles were using
the Greek translation. Take for example this quote, "Christ used the
Septuagint frequently in His quotations and references to the Old Testament.
The use of the Septuagint was widespread in Christ's day!" The book The
Savior and the Scriptures, the Smith's Bible Dictionary, the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, along with many others make similar
WHY ARE SO MANY "SCHOLARS" SO DEVOTED TO THE SEPTUAGINT?
Roman Catholics and liberals use this idea to help support many
unbiblical beliefs. Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the
Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. Their reasoning
goes like this: "Christ used and honored the Septuagint, the Septuagint
includes the Apocrypha, so Christ honored and authorized the Apocrypha."
Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the
Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon.
Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of
One Catholic lesson posted on the Internet states: "Me, I will trust the
version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul." This is in a
lesson entitled "The Canon of the Bible and the Septuagint." The only reason
given for accepting the Apocrypha is that Christ and the apostles quoted the
Septuagint. One quote reads, "Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old
Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John and Paul, etc, which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times
(out of 360 Old Testament references) in their New Testament writings - and
the Septuagint includes seven books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were
removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,600 years after the birth of Christ."
Almost every "fact" given in the statement is incorrect but it illustrates
why Roman Catholicism is so devoted to the Septuagint.
THE BIBLE IN MY OWN WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has
much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living
Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine
of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in
translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is
based upon the concept of verbal
After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture,
why should we? For example, see The Nature and Authority of the Bible,
by Raymond Abba, p. 106) If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put
the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation.
You are now God andprivate interpretation is your method of rule and your
source of authority.
It is easy to see why Roman Catholics and modernists are so devoted to
the idea that Christ used the Septuagint! But why are so many evangelicals
devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof ? Many proud
evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated"
by the world (the Catholics and the modernists). They substitute
conventional wisdom in place of doing their own research and getting solid
answers. There is no evidence that the Greek translation of the Old
Testament was used by Christ and the apostles.
WHAT IS THE SEPTUAGINT?
According to General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (by
H.S. Miller, p. 220): "The Septuagint Version is a translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of
Alexandria. The abbreviation is LXX." But why would Christ, when preaching
to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek
speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt? The existence of this translation is
based upon a letter called the "Letter of Aristeas".
Aristeas claims to be a high official in the court of the Egyptian King
Ptolemy Philadelphius. According to this letter, the royal librarian
suggests that it would be good to have a Greek Translation of the Old
Testament in the Egyptian royal library. The king sent Jews living in Egypt
(including Aristeas) to Jerusalem to ask for help. They asked the high
priest to send six scribes from each tribe of Israel to Alexandria in Egypt
to make this Greek translation of the Old Testament.
They were sent to the island of Pharos where they each did their own
translation of the first five books of the Old Testament. All 72
translations were identical (after 72 days of translation work). This
supposedly proved that the translators were inspired by God! Of course, no
one today believes that this story is actually true but still many base
their doctrine of Scripture upon it. H.S. Miller, (General Biblical
Introduction: From God to Us, p. 222) said that "The Letter to Aristeas"
has been doubted, then denied and that "now it has few, if any, defenders."
One Bible Only?
(Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder) calls it "a mixture
of fact and fable" (p.29). Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the
Bible says, "The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious but
the letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for
the use of Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria (p. 308).
But if this story is "fictions" then there is no "factual" information
about the origin of the Septuagint. There are no other historical references
to the translation of the Old Testament into Greek in Alexandria. The
Introduction to the Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of Origen's
Septuagint) states that the "Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of notice
except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version (LXX)
was once supposed to have possessed."
It also says (p-i), "No information, whatever, as to the time and place
of their execution (ancient versions), or by whom they were made exists, we
simply find such versions in use at particular times..."
The New Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia
admits: "Of the
pre-Christian period of its history (referring to the Septuagint) next to
nothing is known." (Volume II, p.117)
There are no historical references to the Septuagint before the time of
Christ except for the "Letter of Aristeas." Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus and
all of the early Christian writers refer to the same story. A story that no
one today believes! For some reason the work of the Seventy- two began
to be commonly referred to as the LXX or the Seventy. There is no clear
explanation for why it is called "the Seventy" instead of "the Seventy-two."
The lack of a clear explanation is not unusual in this story.
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS
Supporters of the "Christ used the Septuagint" theory often refer to
early Christian writers (such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril
of Jerusalem and Augustine) as proof that Christ and the apostles used the
Septuagint. The writers quoted can all be found in either the Ante-Nicene or
Post-Nicene Fathers. Everyone of these men based their acceptance of the LXX
on the bogus "Letter of Aristeas." The early Christian writers do not add
any other information about Christ using the Septuagint. If you do not
believe the legendary story of "The Letter of Aristeas" then these writers
do not add anything to the discussion. Jerome was a contemporary of
Augustine. Jerome wanted to see a new translation of the Old Testament into
Latin from the Hebrew. Augustine opposed the use of the Hebrew because he
thought the Greek Septuagint was "inspired."
Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by
Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and
that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine's assertion that
the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their
quotations often don't match any version of the Septuagint or any other
Greek New Testament.
It is clear that what is called the Septuagint today has nothing to do
with the story of "The Letter to Aristeas." What is called the Septuagint
today is the work of Origen (almost 200 years after the time of Christ).
Advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint" view are quick to pass off
statements like the one above as "King James propaganda." One writer said:
"So, why is the King James only advocate so desperate to put the completion
of the Septuagint after the writing of the New Testament Scriptures? It is
because the Septuagint is not identical to the Hebrew Scriptures from which
the King James was translated, yet Christ and the apostles often quoted it."
This attack on the advocates of the King James Bible ignored the testimony
of Jerome from the fourth century. The recognition of the history of the
Septuagint is not new. In 1588 (23 years before the release of the King
James Bible) William Whitaker wrote: "Learned men question, whether the
Greek version of the Scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the
seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine
that the true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that the Greek text as we have
it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aristeas says that the
Septuagint version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew originals, so that
when read and diligently examined by skillful judges, it was highly approved
by the general suffrage of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from
the Hebrew, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms of
David." (William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture,
1588, p. 121; Soli Deo Gloria edition 2000) Whitaker was the foremost
defender of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture against Catholicism in his
day. He also wrote: "From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may concede either this Greek version which
has come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy
Jewish elders, or that it has suffered such infinite and shameful
corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the
Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often
complains in his commentary that what he had was faulty and corrupt."
(Disputations on Holy Scripture, p. 122)
This is not "King James Only" propaganda. It is a sound review of
history. In Ira Price's, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, he
mentions several important manuscripts of the Septuagint, p. 52-80. Everyone
(except the John Rylands fragment) is the Origen version of the Septuagint -
produced long after the New Testament. Every manuscript was produced at
least two hundred years after the New Testament that "scholars" claim that
it quotes. "But the earliest extent manuscript of this version (the
Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..." (H. S. Miller, General Biblical
Introduction, p. 120)
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
"Scholars" are fond of saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the
Septuagint. In fact the phrase "the Dead Sea Scrolls proves" is used to
justify any number of ideas that have nothing to do with the Dead Sea
Scrolls. In fact, there is not one single verse of the Old Testament in
Greek in any manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is nothing
about the Septuagint in these scrolls. There are no quotes from the Septuagint or references to it. None of the Dead Sea
Scrolls mention anything about the Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls
are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Some of the Old Testament books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls don't
match the Hebrew of the traditional text. Some scholars call these Hebrew
manuscripts "the Qumran Septuagint." They suggest that these manuscripts
were the Septuagint translated back into Hebrew. There is no reference to
this in any of the scrolls or anywhere else in history. So why do they
believe this? Because they really wish it was true. There is no Qumran
Septuagint! The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove that the "sacred
language" (the language used in sermons, rituals and commentaries) of the
Jews in Palestine around the time of Christ was Hebrew – not Greek.
One of the most common suggested evidences for a Septuagint translation
before the time of Christ is the existence of four manuscript scraps which
contain verses from Deuteronomy. These manuscript scraps actually date from
before the time of Christ and they are the only manuscripts in Greek of any
part of the Old Testament ever found that date before the time of Christ.
The first three manuscript scraps (Rylands Papyrus 458) were found together
and contain Deut. 23, 25:13, 26:12, 17, 19 and 28:31-33. A fourth scrap
found in Fouad, Egypt repeats some of these verses and adds Deut. 32:7.
No New Testament writer quotes any of these verses and they prove
nothing about what Bible Christ and the apostles used. These are the only
manuscripts of a Greek Old Testament from before the time of Christ. All
they prove is that someone had translated part of Deuteronomy into Greek
before 150 B.C. Since they are never quoted they don't prove who used this
translation or how widespread it was.
THE WORK OF PROFESSOR KAHLE
Professor Paul Kahle (1875-1964) challenged the conventional wisdom of
the Septuagint theory. He was not a King James Only advocate. He was a
German professor of Oriental Studies. He was a recognized scholar of
Mideastern languages. Professor Kahle simply refused to accept the legend of
"The Letter of Aristeas." He called it "propaganda." He refused to follow
the conventional wisdom that treats "The Letter of Aristeas" as fictional but
authoritative history at the same time. Kahle's theory states that what we
call the Septuagint today is actually the result of an attempt to
standardize a Greek translation of the Old Testament. This took place over
150 years after the time of Christ and the apostles. He believed that
various scraps of manuscripts and attempts at translations may have been
consulted. He found some evidence for a Greek translation of the first five
books of the Old Testament before the time of Christ but he did not believe
that this translation had anything to do with the legend of "The Letter to
Aristeas." (See The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, Prentice
Hall, 1965, p. 16)
He clearly did not believe that there was any one proto-type for the
Septuagint of Origen. He saw no reason to believe that Christ or the
apostles quoted the Septuagint (which was not produced until at least 150
years later). Most "Septuagint scholars" reject the Kahle theory. It does
not fit with their pre-conceived notions about the Septuagint or with their
theological needs. They simply "dismiss it" but they can't refute it.
Fredrick Kenyon writes, "It must be admitted that Kahle makes a strong
case." Dr. Kahle's theory fits with the
record of Jerome.
THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK -WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Jewish people spread throughout the Greek kingdoms of the Mideast. As
the Roman empire spread through the Mideast, the Jewish dispersion
increased. Some Jews, known as Grecians or Hellenists, adopted the Greek
life style as did much of the Roman Empire. Some of these Jews began to use
Greek as their main language. They were represented in religious circles by
the Sadducees. Some entire Jewish communities began to adopt the Greek language,
including the large Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. Some historians
have estimated that one third of Alexandria was Jewish. Many
supporters of the "Christ used the Septuagint theory" teach that all the
Jews used Greek as their main language and as their sacred language. This,
they say, is why Christ and the apostles used a Greek Old Testament. This
statement is absolutely against all the historical evidences. Outside
Alexandria and a few other distant cities, the number of Jews who used Greek
as their main language was very small.
The main language of the Jewish people was Aramaic. This language is
related to Old Testament Hebrew. According to the unanimous testimony of the
Jewish Mishna and the Jewish Targums, the language of the synagogues and the
rabbis of Palestine was Aramaic. No Greek Old Testament could ever have
gained any acceptance among the Jews of Palestine. There was an Aramaic
translation of the Old Testament in common use among the Jewish people. It
was called the Targum of Onkelos. It was printed in 1517 by Cardinal Ximenes.
Only in the far regions of the dispersion was there a demand for a Greek Old
Testament. There were probably several attempts to translate parts of the
Old Testament in Greek. According to "The Letter of Aristeas," Philo,
Josephus and a writer named Aristobulus, a Greek version of the first five
books of the Old Testament was translated in Alexandra.
Alexandria was one of the few places where a demand for a Greek Old
Testament might have taken place. These authors clearly maintain that this
version closely matched the Hebrew of the first five books of the Bible. The
translation currently known as the Septuagint does not match the Hebrew
closely at all. The scraps of the John Rylands manuscript apparently come
from a pre-Christian era translation of Deuteronomy. Someone invented the
legend of the 72 elders in order to give credibility to a Greek translation,
possibly one from Alexandria. Philo (who some believe invented the legend)
and Josephus promoted this legend. Eventually someone expanded the story to
refer to the whole Old Testament. Whenever someone used a Greek translation
of part of the Old Testament, they called it the Septuagint to try and
connect it to the legend of the "inspired" Alexandrian translation.
Some early Christian leaders fell for this myth. Greek translations of
the whole Old Testament began to appear in the Mideast. Around 140 A.D., a
Greek translation was produced by Aquila. According to Jerome, he studied
under the famed Rabbi Akiba from A.D. 95 until A.D. 135. This translation,
made after the New Testament, purposely obscures the Old Testament
prophecies about Christ that are fulfilled in the New Testament. Because of
this, it found some acceptance among the Jews. Of course, it did not contain
the Apocrypha - if it had it would never have been accepted by the Jews.
Some writers have called Aquila's translation "the Septuagint" or "a
Septuagint." There are no existing copies of this text. Theodotian
(around 180 A.D.) presented a Greek translation of the Old Testament. He was
an "Ebionite" Christian - a heretical sect that denied the deity of Christ.
Theodotian claimed to be correcting the original Septuagint.
(How do you correct an inspired translation?) He also obscures many Old
Testament prophecies about Christ. Since he was writing for a heretical
Christian audience and not a Jewish one, he included some of the Apocrypha.
His work was also called "a Septuagint" or "the Septuagint." A third
translator, Symmachus, was also an Ebionite. He produced a Greek translation
around 211 A.D. He did not include any of the Apocrypha. His work was also
called "a Septuagint" or "the Septuagint." Origen worked on "restoring" the
Septuagint between 220-240 A.D. He claimed that there were as many different
Greek translations as there were manuscripts. As he worked on his
restoration, he had the translations of Aquila, Theodotian and Symmachus in
front of him. He also claimed to have two other Greek manuscripts that he
found in a jar and at least two "corrupted" copies of the true Septuagint.
Of course, Origen had the New Testament. He wrote commentaries on every
book of the New Testament. He collated these Greek manuscripts and created
his own version of the Septuagint. As the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia declares. "It was Origen who claimed to be able to give the
church the true text of the Old Testament and its true meaning." (ISBE, p.
2276) Origen clearly believed that the Old Testament prophecies referred to
Christ. He worked hard at making the Old Testament match the New Testament -
even when it didn't. His Septuagint is what people call the Septuagint
today. There is no copy of a Septuagint from Alexandria to compare with his
copy. There is no way to know how much of Origen's Septuagint he simply
invented. Some writers have said that to declare Origen's Septuagint to be
the document called the Septuagint today is simply "King James propaganda."
"Scholars" like Ira Price, H.S. Miller, Frederick Kenyon and Gleason
Archer are clearly not "King James fanatics." They all recognize that the
current document called the Septuagint is the work of Origen. This is simply
history. The New Schaff - Herzog Encyclopedia refers to Origen's
Septuagint as "the so called Septuagint." (vol. II, p. 116) The
Encyclopedia Britannica, (vol. 5, p. 63) states that the text of the
Septuagint is, "contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable,
manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus both dating from the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus from
the 5th century." All of these early texts are Origen's Septuagint.
Smith's Bible Dictionary (p.
432) states about the Septuagint,
"moreover it has come down to us in a state of great corruption, which
renders it difficult to ascertain what the first translators wrote." In the
fourth century, Jerome complained that the only editions of the Septuagint
available were those of Origen's redaction of the Septuagint. He also
claimed that Origen "borrowed" things to place in his Old Testament. When
writers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr (who wrote before Origen) refer to
the Septuagint, we have no idea what Greek version they were referring to.
It doesn't exist today. Origen's Septuagint was made popular by
Eusebius. As a result..."evidence of Septuagint readings prior to the time
of Origen have been confused or lost." (Ira Price, The Ancestry of Our
English Bible, p. 79) When "scholars" discuss the Septuagint today they
discuss a translation produced after the New Testament by a famous
commentator on the New Testament.
THE EVIDENCE THAT CHRIST DID NOT USE ANY VERSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT
LAW, PROPHETS AND PSALMS
Christ continually refers to the Hebrew division of the Old Testament -
The Law, Prophets and Psalms (see Matt. 7:12, 11:13, 22:40; and Luke
24:27, 44 for example). No known version of the Septuagint has any
such division. Origen's Septuagint has the Old Testament in an entirely
different order with the books of the Apocrypha interspersed among them.
Christ took it for granted that His hearers used an Old Testament with the
historic 3 - fold division found in the Hebrew Bible.
The testimony of Proverbs 30:5-6 is clear. Every word of God
is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not
unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar
Proverbs 3:5-6 clearly condemns adding or subtracting from the
words of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the strongest defenders of the
Septuagint admit that many words are added that are not found in the Hebrew
Scriptures (thus their claims against verbal inspiration). Origen may have
been comfortable violating Proverbs 30:5-6 but Christ wouldn't have
been. If he had violated Proverbs 30:5-6, the Pharisees would have
been very quick to condemn him for this.
READING IN THE SYNAGOGUE
Jesus frequently read the Scriptures and preached from them in the
Jewish Synagogues (see Luke 4 for example). Hebrew was the language
of the Synagogue and Christ was clearly using a Hebrew Bible when preaching
there. No copy of any Greek Old Testament has ever been found in a Jewish
THE COMMON PEOPLE HEARD HIM GLADLY
Jesus' public preaching and teaching drew great crowds of the common
people. If he had preached in Greek he could never have drawn such an
audience. Many Jewish people learned Greek for use in trade and dealing with
the Roman Empire but they never accepted it for communication among
themselves or in sacred matters. The Hellenists (Grecians) who favored
Greek were a small group often distant from the majority of the people. If
Jesus had preached in Greek both the Pharisees and the Zealots would have
used that against Him and the crowds would never have flocked to Him. He
undoubtedly preached in Aramaic (the daily language of the Jews - closely
related to Hebrew) and read the Scriptures from Hebrew. The Synagogues of
Palestine refused to use the Greek and considered the Hebrew sacred (see H.S.
Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 224). The Hebrew Mishna
makes it clear that this was expected from all Jewish teachers.
IS DISOBEDIENCE THE WAY TO GET AN HONORABLE TRANSLATION OF THE
If the story told in "The Letter of Aristeas" had any truth in it at
all, it would involve activities in disobedience to Scripture. The Scripture
was clear that the holy writings were to be handled only by Levites-Dent.
17:18, 31:25-26. The scribes involved in the Aristea's story would be
acting in disobedience to Scripture. Furthermore God had told the Israelites
to stay out of Egypt - see Jeremiah 42:13-22 and 44:25-26. He
condemned all those who returned to Egypt and promised to judge them. Would
Christ have put His stamp of approval on such disobedience?
THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE APOCRYPHA
The translation currently known as the Septuagint (Origen's Septuagint)
contains the books of the Apocrypha. No Hebrew Bible ever contained the
books of the Apocrypha. No Jewish council ever endorsed these books and at
least one Jewish council specifically rejected them (Council of Jamnia A.D.
90). One of the main reasons for rejecting them is because they were
written in Greek. They did not believe that any sacred writings could ever
be in Greek. Jewish leaders would also use this same argument against the
books of the New Testament. It is unthinkable to believe that the Jews in
Palestine used a Greek Old Testament containing the rejected books of the
WHY DON'T NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES MATCH THE OLD TESTAMENT WORD FOR
"Well they had to be quoting something - it must be the Septuagint."
This is the argument of advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint
theory." So what were the New Testament writers and Christ quoting?
There are 268 references to "as it is written" in the New Testament. Few
match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament passages they refer to.
Eighty-eight match (or are matched by) Origen's Septuagint. Most of the
other 180 don't match any ancient document word for word.
Some have suggested that perhaps an Aramaic translation of the Old
Testament or a Chaldean paraphrase are being quoted but this is unlikely.
Actually the explanation is simple and has been known for a long time. The
Greek phrase "as it is written" is a common one in ancient Greek writings.
It is never an indication of an exact quote - in the New Testament or
anywhere else. Frederick Spitta wrote a century ago, "According to the
unvarying practice in the New Testament, the citation formula "as it is
written" is never the introductory clause but rather always follows a report
of something seen as the fulfillment of a prophetic word." The phrase
implies not a quotation but a reference to a fulfillment of a prediction or
a prophecy. For example, see the way the phrase, "as it is written," is used
in the writings of Justin Martyr. These passages are simply not quotes at
all - they are allusions to Old Testament prophecies. These are Holy Spirit
inspired allusions - they are not quotations at all. This was clear to the
Reformed theologians and many of the old Church of England writers. A little
bit of research gives a clear explanation. The critics of the King James
position would be well served to read more widely.
ORIGEN' S SEPTUAGINT COPIES THE NEW TESTAMENT
Many more examples could be shown. Origen's Septuagint adds nine names
to Genesis 46:20 to make it add up to the 75 mentioned in Acts 7:14.
Origen's Septuagint often changes the Old Testament to match the New
Testament. For instance the Old Testament Hebrew is ignored and the Greek
Old Testament is made to match the Greek New Testament. Philo, Aristeas and
Josephus refer to a Greek Old Testament that matches the Hebrew Old
Testament. Origen provides a Greek Old Testament "coordinated" in many
places with the New Testament. This should not come as a surprise. Origen produced his
Greek Old Testament 150 years after the last book of the New Testament was
given. As a noted commentator on all of the books of the New Testament, he
was very familiar with the New Testament. It is not a surprise that 88 Old
Testament allusions in the New Testament match Origen 's Septuagint.
The New Testament came first.
WHAT ABOUT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS?
Advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint" theory are quick to refer
to the fact that some of the King James Bible translators believed this
theory. This is true. However, no one suggests that the King James
translators were infallible in their understanding of church history. If
they had been, they would have left the Church of England and joined the
Baptist churches of their time. It is interesting that many who believe that
the King James translators can be corrected by every college student with
two years of Greek, suddenly find them authoritative when they speak about
church history. Their expertise was in the Greek, Hebrew and Latin
languages, not in church history.
According to Dewey Beagle, only in recent years (he was writing in 1960)
have "scholars" begun to value the Septuagint again. (God's Word Into
English, p. 44) Could it be that the Biblical and textual "scholars"
from the 1500's to the 1900's were right after all? The Scripture offers
many warnings about being careful what we believe. Beware lest any
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians