Question
According to a website by Mr. Gipps, there was no LXX (Septuagint ) that the new testament writers used. What is your opinion on this?
Response
Briefly put, my understanding is this: the claims that are made for the existence of a Greek translation of the Old Testament about 250 B.C. are without any real foundation. They exist solely upon the claim set forth in a piece of literature called the Letter of Aristeas, and both the authenticity of the letter’s author and the reliability of its contents as true historical data have been called into question numerous times. Hence, to me there is no provable claim in the first place that any such official undertaking of a translation took place. To me, there is no reliable proof that I should even entertain the idea that there could have been a Greek translation of the Old Testament that our Lord and the apostles might have used, and much less is there any proof that there should have been one that they would have used.
Moreover, the manuscript evidence simply does not exist for a Greek translation of the Old Testament existing either before Christ came, during His earthly ministry, or even during the time of the apostles. It is assumed that one existed because of the aforementioned letter, and there are numerous theories, speculations, and the like, regarding when it was done, where it was done, what happened to it, etc., etc. But an assumption and the truth are more often than not two entirely different things. And in this case, there is no manuscript evidence to even give a measure of credence to the assumption. What is called the LXX today, and what is appealed to when it is cited, is a particular column of Origen’s Hexapla which he produced during his lifetime of 185-254 A.D. Origen’s Hexapla is a six-columned compilation of some Old Testament translation works that were done between 150 A.D. and the time of Origen’s death. He compiled them together, with the fifth column of the work being his own Greek translation of the Old Testament. In accordance with the assumption that an LXX translation actually did take place around 250-150 B.C., Origen’s column is described as being a revision of the actual LXX. But, once again, this is only a conjecture, and it itself is based upon the assumption that the LXX translation actually did take place and existed. As far as the manuscript evidence is concerned, the only Greek translations of the Old Testament anyone can be sure of actually taking place and existing are the ones in Origen’s Hexapla; and these were all done at least 100 years after Christ was here. And with that being the case, it is not difficult to understand how the Old Testament verses in these Greek translations could match up with either the quotations or references to these verses in the New Testament writings. For each of these Greek translators lived after the New Testament was authored and they had access to it, by which they could adjust the Greek translations they were making to reflect how the New Testament writers quoted from and referred to the Old Testament.
Once again, to me there exists no real or reliable foundation to the claims made for, or the things said about, the LXX in the modern phase to the science of textual criticism.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20000528 B63 B kjv