|
|
-
Question #9 -
QUESTION:
What is the LXX?
ANSWER:
A figment of someone's imagination.
EXPLANATION: First,
let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An
ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas"
revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation
of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation
was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace
the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be
performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve
tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be
Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly
around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close
of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in
approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
It has become known as the Septuagint,
"The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is
represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70,
hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII
I'll never know.
This so called "Letter of Aristeas"
is the sole evidence for the existence of this
mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek
Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or
anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of
such a work being contemplated or performed.
When pressed to produce hard
evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly
point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD,
or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly
penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was
completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his
own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the
Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the
Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other
apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman
Catholic Church.
Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to
claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only
copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this
argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that
those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to
their work before they were ever written. (!)
Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to
God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
Thus we see that the second column of the
Hexapla is Origen's personal, unveilable translation of the Old
Testament into Greek and nothing more.
Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable
character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire
Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially
accepted translation.
Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old
Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one
minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It
contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it
may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo
to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been
translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the
history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any
pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can
rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for
the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
Besides the non-existence of any reason to
believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles
which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla,
Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas"
itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not
written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true
author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were
true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive
believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of
the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in
spades".
If there was an Aristeas, he
was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate
the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars
from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats
and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since
dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible
for anyone to distinctly identify the 12
individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had
been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation
for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker
of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy
17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of
any of the eleven other tribes would dare join
such a forbidden enterprise.
(2) It is obvious to any
reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different
from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such
distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws
of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage
of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and
India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The
Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of
their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew
language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
Are we to be so naive as to believe that the
Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs,
would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a
Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest
possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as
it is absurd.
"What then," one might ask, "of
the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that
are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing
more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament
quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the
Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty
of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He
wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting
any non-existent Septuagint.
Only one more question arises. Then why
are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the
face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad
and simple.
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to
learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of
it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle
of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily
attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old
Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple
the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of
biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of
the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and
voracity.
But stop and think. Even if such a spurious
document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic,
who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No
translation has the authority of the original language, "
claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with
the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more
than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly
position above those "unschooled in the original
languages."
If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge
to sell you in Brooklyn!
Back
to The Answer Book Index
|
|
|
