Many, particularly Greco-Roman Catholics, consider that the Greek Septuagint Old Testament is superior to the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament. Plus, supporters of the Septuagint tend to accept books of the Bible that early Christians, current Church of God Christians, and Protestants do not accept as inspired.
The term ‘Septuagint’ (LXX) is from the Latin septuaginta, ‘seventy.’ This term septuaginta seems to have been first used by Augustine in his City of God (Sundberg AC, Jr. The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism. In: The Canon Debate. Baker Academic, 2002) which was published in 426.
The Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew writings, which now includes ones known as the Old Testament as well as those often referred to as the Old Testament Apocrypha.
According to legend, seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) from biblical Hebrew into Greek. This was to be done on a scroll to be included in the famous Library of Alexandria shortly before it ended up burning down (Dines JM. The Septuagint. Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004).
The legend claims that the translators each came up with identical translations of the Torah — Irenaeus of Lyon also pushed this story (Adversus Heresies, III, Chapter, 21, verse 2). That legend came from a falsified work. Here is some information about it:
Letter of Aristeas, pseudepigraphal work of pseudo-history produced in Alexandria … The author assumed the name of a 2nd-century-bc writer and purported to give a contemporary account of the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, into Greek. He presented himself as a pagan admirer of Judaism who held a high position in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 bc) in Alexandria. The writer used current Hellenistic literary conventions and the technical language of the Alexandrian court, but his Greek style and several historical inaccuracies indicate that he was a deliberate archaist. (Letter of Aristeas. Encyclopædia Britannica — accessed 04/17/20)
The initial ‘Septuagint’ translation was believed to have been done in the 2nd and/or 3rd century B.C. The Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria in Egypt ended up accepting and promoting this translation.
The Eastern Orthodox essentially believe that the Septuagint translators improved the Bible:
The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation. (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, p.200)
Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev notes:
… though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE … St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that “in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions.” (Alfeyev H. Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012, p. 34)
Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox believe that the original inspiration of the Old Testament (which was mainly written in Hebrew) was improved by humans who translated it into Greek, in the version known as the Septuagint.
Jewish, as well as Church of God, scholars would consider that to effectively be a blasphemous position to take. Humans cannot improve the originally inspired word of God.
That being said, Greek Christians (like Theophilus of Antioch) who seemingly did not read Hebrew tended to read the Septuagint or similar translations of the Old Testament (not because they accepted the Apocrypha, but because it was available), but that does not mean they called it superior to the Hebrew text.
Notice also:
In the 3rd century ce Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate. (Septuagint. Encyclopædia Britannica — accessed 04/17/20)
Since the manuscripts of the Septuagint were copied by hand and by people of differing abilities, there were different versions of the Septuagint in existence. The translation of the book of Daniel was so poor that the second-century translation attributed to Theodotion replaced it.
By the 3rd century, the textual problem had become so bad that Origen collected all the existing versions of the Septuagint and created a six-column work called the Hexapla. The Hexapla … was Origen’s ‘corrected’ text of the Septuagint. (Carlson K. Hidden in Plain Sight, Part I: The Development of the Canon. Dormition Publishing, 2019, p. 47)
So, this demonstrates whatever version that exists now was not fully in place during the time of Jesus and His disciples.
Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that Lucian of Antioch (late 3rd and early 4th century) while opposing allegorical positions (such as held by Origen) tried to correct translation errors in the Septuagint by consulting with the Hebrew texts:
Lucian was a Hebrew scholar, and his version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and in Asia Minor. (Duchesne L. Early History of the Christian Church: From Its Foundation to the End of the Third Century, Volume 1, 4th edition. Longmans, Green & Co., 1912, p. 362)
Lucian also rejected the Apocrypha (Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant, ca. 1890. Reprint: Teach Services, Brushton, NY, 1994, p. 51). Waldensian and pre-Waldensians later used information from Lucian (Wilkinson BG. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. 1930, reprint TEACH Services, 2014, pp. 31, 40).
Augustine of Hippo thought the Hebrew (the Masoretic) and Septuagint were both authoritative, even where they contradicted each other (Augustine. City of God, Book 18, Chapter 44). But he also seemed to show a preference for the Masoretic as ‘authoritative’ (Wendland E. HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Overview of Aspects of the Scripture Transmission Process, Version 2.6. Lusaka Lutheran Seminary, August 29, 2017, p. 20).
Jesus declared, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), hence to suggest that scripture was broken and then declare it was later improved/fixed is theologically unsound. Changing/improving scripture is also in violation of numerous scriptures (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5; Psalm 12:6-7, 33:4, 119:160, Revelation 22:18).
We in the Continuing Church of God believe that the Bible is infallible as originally written and do not believe that the Holy Spirit improved the word of God through human translators. We believe God gave the world the Bible, through His chosen human instruments (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21), and it was infallible when given.
Some scholars have claimed that the term ‘Septuagint’ was developed from Exodus 24:1,9 where seventy elders were referred to, and that Moses and Aaron were added to come up with 72 translators (Sundberg AC, Jr. The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism. In: The Canon Debate. Baker Academic, 2002). However, irrespective of where the term Septuagint may have come from, Moses did not write the Torah in Greek.
Chronology Errors
The Septuagint has errors in chronology related to Genesis 5 and 11. Even according to defenders of the Septuagint, this results in adding 1386 additional years as compared to the Masoretic text (e.g. Smith, HB, Jr. 2018. The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 117–132. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship).
Notice what a translation of the Septuagint teaches:
25 And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech eight hundred and two years, and begot sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were nine hundred and sixty and nine years, and he died. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. (Genesis 5:25-28, Elpenor’s Bilingual (Greek / English) Old Testament. English translation by L.C.L. Brenton)
21 And there died all flesh that moved upon the earth, of flying creatures and cattle, and of wild beasts, and every reptile moving upon the earth, and every man. 22 And all things which have the breath of life, and whatever was on the dry land, died. 23 And [God] blotted out every offspring which was upon the face of the earth, both man and beast, and reptiles, and birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth, and Noe was left alone, and those with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:21-23, Ibid)
The Septuagint has Methuselah living 802 years after Lamech was born and Lamech having a son Noah at age 188. This means that Methuselah lived 614 years after Noah was born. Yet, the Great Flood came in the 600th year of Noah’s life per Genesis 7:10-12.
This is a major problem for the Septuagint. Since all humans died from the Flood except those with Noah (Genesis 7:23), and Mathusula/Methuselah was not among them, because “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), the Bible itself proves that the Septuagint was wrong and the translation was NOT inspired by God. (Note: The Roman Catholic Douay Old Testament of 1609 does not agree with the Septuagint on Genesis 5:25-26, but with the chronology of the Masoretic text.)
According to the Masoretic text, Methuselah lived 782 years after Lamech was born and 600 years after Noah was born (Genesis 5:26-29). That means either Methuselah died right before the flood or, probably more likely, in the Flood. Methuselah did not live past the Flood.
There is another chronological item to consider with the Septuagint. “Figures from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC” (Smith, p. 117).
This creates a problem for the Eastern Orthodox because several of their early saints taught that a millennial reign of 1,000 years would begin at the end of the 6,000 years (e.g. Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book V, Chapter 28:2-3; 29:2 and Methodius. Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 9, Chapter 1). Since the Septuagint’s 6,000 years would have been up in the 5th century A.D., and the millennium then did not happen, this demonstrates that either Greco-Roman saints were in error and/or the Septuagint’s chronology was off.
Since the Masoretic text, in this author’s view, points to the creation being c. 3959-3971 B.C., we have not yet come to the end of the 6,000 years, though we are getting close.
Superiority?
Many, particularly among the Eastern Orthodox, believe that the Septuagint is superior to the original Hebrew. Notice the following summary of claimed reasons from Alexandru Mihaila from the University of Bucharest Orthodox Theology Department:
I summarize the principal arguments in favor of the exclusiveness of the Septuagint:
– the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text;
– the Septuagint is inspired (a conception that started with Philo of Alexandria);
– the Holy Apostles and New Testament authors used the Septuagint;
– the Fathers of the Church quoted the Septuagint;
– the rabbis modified the Masoretic Text in order to eliminate the Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus Christ;
– the Septuagint is the official version of the Orthodox Church. (Mihăilă A. The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in the Orthodox Church(es) Download Date | 9/18/19. https://docplayer.net/156142221-The-septuagint-and-the-masoretic-text-in-the-orthodox-church-es-alexandru-mihaila-recent-positions-of-romanian-theologians.html — accessed 03/24/20)
Let’s look at each of those.
First, it is true that several of the Septuagint documents are older than the Masoretic texts, but it is not in the original language of the Old Testament. It should be noted that the ‘Silver Scrolls’ provide evidence of the accuracy of the Masoretic text as far back as the 6th and/or 7th centuries B.C.—and they are older than the earliest Septuagint texts that have been found (c. 2nd century B.C.). Additional reasons to accept the Masoretic text are found later in this book.
Second, claims of inspiration of translators have no basis in scripture and are mainly speculation. Because of errors in the Septuagint, any claims of Divine inspiration can be fully discounted. Furthermore, Philo of Alexandria believed that the world existed eternally in contradiction to the account in the Book of Genesis — he also held many other non-biblical positions.
Third, Jesus, at least sometimes, quoted from the Hebrew. And while New Testament authors and others writing in Greek sometimes quoted in ways consistent with the Septuagint, they never indicated that the Septuagint was in any way superior to the Hebrew originals or they would ALWAYS quote it precisely. The fact that a Greek translation of the Hebrew was sometimes correct, does not prove that God inspired the entire translation. Plus the fact that the Septuagint was changed after the original apostles died should show all that it was NOT directly inspired.
Fourth, the fact that some early Greek writers sometimes used a Greek translation of Hebrew does not mean that it was superior. Melito’s not listing the books in the order found in the Septuagint is, in essence, additional concurrence of that point.
Fifth, there is no proof that rabbis (or Levites) specifically altered the Masoretic text in order to eliminate prophecies associated with Jesus. Actually, the Great Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran, demonstrates that the Jews did not alter Isaiah.
Portion of the Great Isaiah Scroll
Furthermore, there are hundreds of prophecies from the Masoretic text that Jesus fulfilled—so obviously the Jews had not intentionally removed those. Those prophetic verses can be found in the free book, online at ccog.org, Proof Jesus is the Messiah.
Sixth, the fact that the Orthodox Catholic Church (as it is officially called) has adopted the Septuagint is true, but those in the COG and most other faiths do not consider their determination as authoritative (see also the free book, online at ccog.org, titled: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church).
Seventh, the modern Septuagint contains books that neither Jesus nor the apostles accepted as valid.
Additional Books
After the Greek version of the Torah was completed, more books were later translated — but the original Septuagint did NOT include the Apocryphal books — they were added later.
Apocrypha comes from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος meaning ‘hidden’ or ‘secret wisdom.’ The apocryphal books, in other words, had a hidden beginning, a secret origin — not openly given to the community at first.
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that the expanded list of Septuagint books (the Apocryphal ones), and not just the books that Jesus and others in Palestine used, is more complete and should be considered as sacred scripture:
… that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, Hellenist, Jews. …
The most striking difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles is the presence in the former of a number of writings which are wanting in the latter and also in the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism. These number seven books: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Machabees, and three documents added to protocanonical books, viz., the supplement to Esther, from x, 4, to the end, the Canticle of the Three Youths (Song of the Three Children) in Daniel 3, and the stories of Susanna and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon, forming the closing chapters of the Catholic version of that book. Of these works, Tobias and Judith were written originally in Aramaic, perhaps in Hebrew; Baruch and I Machabees in Hebrew, while Wisdom and II Machabees were certainly composed in Greek. The probabilities favour Hebrew as the original language of the addition to Esther, and Greek for the enlargements of Daniel.
The ancient Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint was the vehicle which conveyed these additional Scriptures into the Catholic Church. (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament)
Sadly, improper books have been used as the vehicle to provide support for various non-scriptural positions related to the dead and improper worship.
Like the Catholics of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox believe it took many centuries to determine the books of the Bible that they accepted:
The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’. These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1641) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture’; (Ware, p. 200)
The late Septuagint included the Apocrypha, the so-called Deutero-Canonical Books, which means it had extra-books. These extra books are not inspired by God.
It may be of interest to note that those apocryphal books were not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran.
“Based on the findings at Qumran, the Apocrypha was not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. It was only during and after the time of Augustine (AD 354-430), when he, along with the local councils he influenced, declared the books of the Apocrypha inspired.” (Holden, p. 90)
Notice the following admission from an Eastern Orthodox source:
[M]ost Orthodox scholars … consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand at a lower footing than the rest of scripture. (Ware, p.200)
So, while the Old Testament Apocrypha is accepted as scripture by the Eastern Orthodox, their scholars believe it is of lower footing than the actual biblical books.
This seems to be confusing for the Orthodox: it either is scripture or it is not! Of course, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
The extra books were not divinely inspired. Though they can have some interesting historical information, they should not be considered part of the biblical canon.
Notice the following observation:
Numerous spurious books were gradually introduced into the inspired Canon. No two copies of the earliest Catholic Bibles agree as to which apocryphal books were to be added. It was not until 397 A.D., at the Council of Carthage, that Augustine, the Canaanite Bishop from Hippo in North Africa, led the Council of Carthage to generally approve seven Apocryphal books. As late as 363 A.D., at the Council of Laodicea the Greek Church rejected the Apocryphal books as a whole. … At the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, those who rejected the Apocrypha were declared to be ‘anathema of Christ’! Here was the authority of men determining what others must believe. This was not the authority of God. (Do We Have The COMPLETE BIBLE? Ambassador College Publications, 1974)
Before going further, it may be of interest to note that the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox do not accept ALL the extra books that are part of the Septuagint. Though, the Eastern Orthodox claim:
The official version of the Old Testament authorized by the Orthodox Church for use in worship and reading is that of the Septuagint. The number of books in the Septuagint Old Testament edition of the Bible are forty-nine books, twenty-seven in the New Testament. (Holy Scripture In The Orthodox Church. ‘The Bible.’ Compiled by Father Demetrios Serfes, Boise, Idaho, USA. August 20 2000)
Essentially, the Roman and Orthodox Catholics do not consider 2 Esdras, to be canonical (though it is in an appendix to the Slavonic Bible) nor 4 Maccabees (though it is in an appendix to the Greek Bible). 1 & 2 Esdras were part of the Latin Vulgate that Jerome originally prepared (though he endorsed neither one).
2 Esdras was possibly rejected by the Catholics of Rome and most of the Eastern Orthodox because it teaches that one should not pray for the dead as that will not affect their “punishment or reward” (2 Esdras 7:105; cf. 7:88). This is in contradiction to the Septuagint text of 2 Maccabees 12:45-46, which improperly endorses prayer for the dead.
The following additional Septuagint books are accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Roman Catholics:
- 1 Esdras
- Prayer of Manasseh
- 3 Maccabees
- 4 Maccabees
- Psalm 151 (in the Septuagint)
- Odes
Thus, neither the Church of Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox seemingly accept all the Septuagint books, and they also do not accept all of the same books. Note that the Eastern Orthodox say they have 79 books and the Church of Rome 73.
This would seem to be problematic in their talks about ecumenical unity. However, some of the text is the same in both Bibles, but categorized differently.
Some Quotes from the Apocrypha
Beyond the Jews and history, one can determine that the Apocrypha should not be considered as scripture as it contains doctrinal contradictions to the Bible.
For example, notice something from the fifth chapter of the Apocryphal Book of Tobit:
4 Tobiah went out to look for someone who would travel with him to Media, someone who knew the way. He went out and found the angel Raphael standing before him (though he did not know that this was an angel of God).
5 Tobiah said to him, “Where do you come from, young man?” He replied, “I am an Israelite, one of your kindred. I have come here to work.” …
11 Tobit asked him, “Brother, tell me, please, from what family and tribe are you?”
12 He replied, “Why? What need do you have for a tribe? Aren’t you looking for a hired man?” Tobit replied, “I only want to know, brother, whose son you truly are and what your name is.”
13 He answered, “I am Azariah, son of the great Hananiah, one of your own kindred.”
An angel of God would not lie about his ancestry. But that is what is happening in this book.
In chapter 6, this lying angel later told Tobit to get fish entrails:
7 Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?”
8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. 9 As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.”
The Bible does not enjoin anything like burning fish entrails for removing demons. This is not something that Jesus did (Matthew 5:8; 17:18), nor the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:18). Jesus also did not apply gall to eyes for healing (cf. Matthew 20:34; John 9:6-7).
Another false book of the Apocrypha is called Wisdom (or the Wisdom of Solomon). Its third chapter teaches:
16 But the children of adulterers will not reach maturity, the offspring of an unlawful bed will disappear.
17 Even if they live long, they will count for nothing, their old age will go unhonoured at the last; 18 while if they die early, they have neither hope nor comfort on the day of judgement, 19 for the end of a race of evil-doers is harsh.
So, in other words, Wisdom is teaching that if you are born outside of proper wedlock, you will likely not reach maturity. That is simply false.
Furthermore, Wisdom is teaching that a child of adultery will perish and there’s nothing anyone can do about it! This is against scriptures in the New Testament such as Mark 3:28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and John 3:16-17 — as well as some in the Old Testament like Ezekiel 18:19-20.
The sixth chapter of the Book of Wisdom contains the following lie:
24 In the greatest number of the wise lies the world’s salvation, in a sagacious king the stability of a people.
The wisdom of the world IS NOT salvation (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:19-29) —salvation only comes through Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:30; Acts 4:10-12).
Here are some passages from the third chapter of the book of Sirach also called Ecclesiasticus:
3 Those who honor their father atone for sins;
14 Kindness to a father will not be forgotten; it will serve as a sin offering — it will take lasting root. 15 In time of trouble it will be recalled to your advantage, like warmth upon frost it will melt away your sins.
30 As water quenches a flaming fire, so almsgiving atones for sins.
While we are to honor our father (cf. Exodus 20:12) and give to the poor (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:9), these are not offerings that atone for sins. Sirach is clearly in conflict with New Testament scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:3-7, Hebrews 10:4-10, and 1 John 2:2.
Notice the first several verses of the 12th chapter of Sirach:
1 If you do good, know for whom you are doing it, and your kindness will have its effect.
2 Do good to the righteous and reward will be yours, if not from them, from the LORD.
3 No good comes to those who give comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that they do. 4 Give to the good but refuse the sinner; 5 refresh the downtrodden but give nothing to the proud. No arms for combat should you give them, lest they use these against you; Twofold evil you will obtain for every good deed you do for them.
These passages clearly go against the teachings of Jesus in passages such as Matthew 5:43-48, 6:3, and Luke 6:27-36.
Sirach takes a negative stance against women (cf. Sirach 22:3). It also has the following statement which conflicts with scripture:
24 With a woman sin had a beginning, and because of her we all die. (Sirach 25:24)
On this, let us look at some of what the New Testament teaches:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
The New Testament is blaming Adam, not Eve (cf. Romans 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 2:14) for death.
Sirach is obviously opposed to the Bible and no one should consider it as part of the Old Testament Canon.
There are many other passages from the Apocrypha that could be cited here to show that they should not be scripture. Hopefully, enough are cited here to provide you sufficient proof of that.
Note: The version of the Apocrypha shown in this section is that used at the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2017 (www.usccb.org) — lest any feel that a translation bias distorted their meaning.
The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 notes, “no controversy arose concerning the Apocrypha: all were agreed that they were non-canonical.”
Justin and Other Books?
Is there justification for other books in the Old Testament?
In what looks like a rather weak attempt to try to justify its use of the additional books, The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’, and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. (Reid, Old Testament Canon)
Specifically, Justin claimed, that the Jews (‘they’) removed scriptures:
And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy …
Trypho remarked, “Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”
“Assuredly,” said I, “it does seem incredible”. (Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71,73)
Justin seemed to teach that Jewish leaders removed passages from the Bible — he did not clearly teach that books were missing (Ibid. Chapters 71-73). Scholar F.F. Bruce indicated that Justin erroneously thought that words which were later added to the Septuagint by ‘Christians’ had been removed by the Jews in their scriptures (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 66).
Justin also stated that the Jews did NOT trust the Septuagint as they asserted the Septuagint translators improperly changed passages, but he wanted Trypho to trust it anyway (Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 68).
Furthermore, Justin Martyr, in this author’s view, was an apostate and not a faithful Christian. While in Ephesus, Justin admitted that he did not live differently than the Gentiles (in violation of Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:17), taught God’s law was not in force, and did not observe the Sabbaths or the other Holy Days that the early Church did (Dialogue. Chapter 18). And, apparently, he did not accept the same content of the books that the disciples did for the Old Testament. Justin seemed to teach that the Jews eliminated parts by not accepting everything from the Septuagint translators. It may be important to note that Justin wrote decades BEFORE Melito, and Melito did not include any of the deuterocanonical books in his list.
After Justin Martyr left Ephesus he became influential in Rome. Eusebius noted:
And in Rome … Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there … But Justin was especially prominent in those days. (Eusebius Church History. Book IV, Chapter 11)
Justin became so prominent that his influence was later being used as justification that ultimately led to the adoption of extra books in the Old Testament (Reid, Old Testament Canon) that were not in those scriptures used by Christ and the original apostles! He influenced Rome’s preference for the Septuagint.
Apocrypha Not Accepted by Certain Famous Greco-Roman Saints
As mentioned earlier, the books that the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend to call the deuterocanonical books, are normally called the Apocrypha or the apocryphal books associated with the Old Testament. (There are also ones associated with the New Testament and they are specifically rejected by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and those in the Churches of God.)
These books were not included in Melito’s list of the 2nd century. They were also rejected in the third and fourth centuries by Greco-Roman scholars such as Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome (who was named Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius), essentially because they understood that the books were not properly accepted by the Jews and did not agree with certain church teachings.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.), taught:
“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters”. (Eusebius. Church History, Book VI, Chapter 25, verse 1)
He then listed the books as we know them from the Hebrew Bible. He did not list the Apocrypha as canonical and put Maccabees in a different category than canonical scripture (Ibid, verse 2).
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 330 A.D.) taught:
The books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, which is the number of the letters among the Hebrews. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, of Kings four, two books; of Paralipomenon (Chronicles) two, one book; Esdras two, one book; Psalms, Proverbs; twelve prophets, one book; then Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and epistles; Ezekiel and Daniel. Then there are books uncanonical, but readable, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit. (As cited in Stowe CE. Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament. Bibliotheca sacra: a theological quarterly, Volume 11. Dallas Theological Seminary and Graduate School of Theology, April 1854, p. 298)
Notice, that although he was wrong about Esther and Baruch, Athanasius basically did not consider that the Apocrypha was part of the canon. He also stated:
Since some persons have attempted to set in order the books that are called apocryphal, and to mix them with the divinely inspired Scriptures, of which we have been fully certified, as those who saw them from the beginning, and who, being ministers of that word, handed them down from our fathers, it seemed fitting to me, being exhorted thereto by the orthodox brethren, and having learned the truth, to set in order the canonical Scriptures, which have been handed down, and are believed to be from God; that every one who has been deceived, may convict those who led him astray. (ibid, pp. 298-299)
So, Athanasius said that people had been deceived by non-canonical books and that the Apocrypha was not canonical. He also claimed that the true books had been handed down from the beginning: and even though he himself did not know the precise list well, he was right about the correct books being handed down to the faithful (he also did list the 27 books of the New Testament in a letter in 367: Athanasius. 39th Letter. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace).
It should be noted that Athanasius is considered to be a major saint by the Greco-Romans as he was the biggest advocate of the trinity at the Council of Nicea and was outnumbered by non-trinitarians by about 8:1. Clearly, he did not accept the ‘deuterocanonical’ books.
Notice something from a Roman Catholic author:
The Septuagint tradition, which included not only the protocanonicals but also seven additional books … this tradition also had fuzzy boundaries. Some editions of the Septuagint included additional books such as 1-2 Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh. (Akin J. The Bible is a Catholic Book. Catholic Answers Press, 2019, p. 41)
‘Fuzzy boundaries’ means that scholars realize that the Septuagint’s traditional inclusion of various books cannot be trusted and some versions of the Septuagint have even more improper books.
“God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Jerome and the Deuterocanonical Books
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books … Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. … the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the ‘confirmation of the doctrine of the Church’, to borrow Jerome’s phrase. (Reid, Old Testament Canon)
But Jerome did not simply consider these additions were inferior.
Notice here where he calls Judith a historical book (as opposed to divinely inspired), but says he was forced to include it:
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night’s work, translating according to sense rather than verbatim. (Jerome. Jerome, The Preface on the Book of Judith: English translation by Andrew S. Jacobs)
Notice that Jerome called it apocrypha and that he did not consider that it actually was considered sacred at the time of Nicea (325 A.D.). Notice also the following he wrote about Tobias:
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. (Jerome, Prologue to Tobit. Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, 2006)
Notice also that Jerome specifically stated that the churches condemned the Septuagint additions to the Book of Daniel:
In reference to Daniel … I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ … I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible. (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 33)
The Septuagint version includes a section called Bel and the Dragon and the Susanna story — which were originally written in Greek (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 76) — these are two sections that the original Hebrew does not have, but they have been accepted by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as part of their Bible.
Here is a Roman Catholic claim:
Saint Jerome … used the Septuagint Greek version and retained all forty-six Old Testament books with the twenty-seven New Testament books to formulate the first single-volume edition of the Christian Bible, totaling seventy-three books. Things didn’t change for fifteen centuries until the Protestant Reformation. (Brighenti KK, Trijilio J Jr. The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions. Sourcebooks, Inc, 2007, p. 23)
Yet that certainly gives the wrong impression. Jerome was opposed to the Apocrypha and other Roman leaders were uncertain about them. Nor was it 15 centuries to the Protestant Reformation — it was just over 11. Plus, Jerome used the Hebrew text for the Old Testament when he could (Francis, Pope. APOSTOLIC LETTER SCRIPTURAE SACRAE AFFECTUS OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS ON THE SIXTEEN HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF SAINT JEROME. Copyright – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, September 30, 2020)—he used comparatively little of the Septuagint itself as he preferred the Hebrew first and the Greek text by Theodotion and others secondarily (Worth Jr, RH. Bible Translations: A History Through Source Documents. McFarland Publishing, 1992, pp. 19–30).
Regarding Jerome and his involvement with scripture, Pope Francis went so far as to declare:
Jerome can serve as our guide because, like Philip (cf. Acts 8:35), he leads every reader to the mystery of Jesus, while responsibly and systematically providing the exegetical and cultural information needed for a correct and fruitful reading of the Scriptures. (Francis, APOSTOLIC LETTER SCRIPTURAE SACRAE AFFECTUS)
Yet, if Jerome is the guide for Roman Catholics, they would have to admit that he did not want people to value the Apocrypha of the Septuagint.
Consider that Jerome accepted the 22 books as the Hebrews numbered them as inspired and not the Apocrypha:
Jerome, writing about A.D. 400, has left two lists of OT books. Both agree with the Protestant OT canon, though the order varies and the two lists differ in order. He lists the books of the OT in his Prologus Galeatus (written in 388) and numbers them twenty-two according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Others he says are among the Apocrypha and names Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, the post-Christian Shepherd of Hermas (or as some think 4 Esdras), and the books of Maccabees. It has always been regarded as curious that the man who translated the VULGATE Bible used by Roman Catholics with its Apocrypha is a most explicit witness against the Apocrypha. (Tenney MC. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 1: Revised Full-Color Edition — Kindle. Zondervan Academic, 2010)
Furthermore, Jerome specifically challenges the validity of the Septuagint and states that the Hebrew Bible was used by Jesus and the Apostles:
The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 34)
Jerome, the person who, in a sense, gave the Church of Rome the Bible, was opposed to books that he was required to include. He also correctly believed that the translation of the Septuagint was inferior to the Apostles’ writings.
While Jerome was apparently pressured to state otherwise later in his life, his writings clearly show he had serious misgivings about the Apocrypha and realized those books were not originally part of the Bible.
Historical Catholic Concerns
Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius were not the only Roman or Eastern Orthodox leaders with concerns about the extra books.
Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) also indicated that the Apocryphal books were considered to be of lesser reliability as he wrote:
We speak not from apocryphal books, but from Daniel; for he says, And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. A time is the one year in which his coming shall for a while have increase; and the times are the remaining two years of iniquity, making up the sum of the three years; and the half a time is the six months. (Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lecture 15 On the Clause, And Shall Come in Glory to Judge the Quick and the Dead; Of Whose Kingdom There Shall Be No End, Chapter 16. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894)
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes its leaders had concerns about these additional Old Testament books for centuries. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT DURING THE FOURTH, AND FIRST HALF OF THE FIFTH, CENTURY
In this period the position of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure … Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigilant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish Old Testament, Esther excepted … Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage …
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH TO THE CLOSE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY
This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity …
The Latin Church
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. (Reid, Canon of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia)
Even into the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was not sure if the deuterocanonical books were on a par with scripture!
Either they always were inspired by God or always were not.
Thus, while many of the Greco-Roman churches knew which were and were not the true books at least as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, there still was contention. Additional books came to be accepted by them that were NOT part of the original faith, which true Christians are to earnestly contend for (Jude 3).
Catholic theologians, like 11th century Saxony priest Hugh of St. Victor, taught that the additional books were not scripture (Hugh. On the Sacraments, I, Prologue. As cited in Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 99).
Notice something from ArmenianBible.org (accessed 04/16/20):
Not till the 8th century was the Apocrypha rendered into Armenian: it was not read in Armenian churches until the 12th.
Furthermore, these additional books were not once and for all officially adopted by Rome until 1546. The use of the term ‘deuterocanonical’ seems to have first been used in the 16th century (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 105) and is essentially an admission that they were not original.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states:
The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, ‘second’) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the ‘Apocrypha’. … The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria (see SEPTUAGINT). The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era … The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546 … The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. (Reid, Old Testament Canon)
Why were they adopted in the 16th century?
Here is the view of a Protestant writer:
There is a mistaken belief among some that the Apocrypha books were part of the Bible, and that these were rejected by the Protestant Reformers. On the contrary, the Apocrypha books were never a part of the Old Testament Canon. Thus there is no question of the Reformers dropping out some books from the Canon. Rather, it is the Roman Catholic Church which ADDED these books to the Canon by a proclamation made at the Council of Trent…
With the Protestant Reformation, many of the Reformers challenged the Catholic church to prove their doctrine by supporting these from the Canon. To their dismay the Roman Catholics discovered that many of their doctrines are not derived from the Canon. At the same time they realized that at least some of these erroneous doctrines are supported by the Apocrypha. Thus for their survival it became necessary to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church convened what is called the Council Of Trent. Here they passed numerous resolutions, including many curses against the Protestant Believers. In April 1545 the Council declared that the Apocrypha are also part of the Bible. Thus for the first time in history the Apocrypha books were ADDED by the Roman Catholic church to the Bible. This was done in order to justify their doctrinal errors (for which support was available only in the Apocrypha), and also to oppose the Protestant believers. The first Vatican Council held 1869-70 reaffirmed the decision of the Roman Catholic Church to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.
Historically and theologically the Apocrypha was never part of the Canon. (Philip JC. Reliability of The Canon. Indus School of Apologetics and Theology Textbook No -004A1, version used in 2006)
The Roman Catholics were not the only ones to adopt those so-called deuterocanonical books. The Eastern Orthodox Church did as well.
It should also be noted, further, that John Wycliffe included them in his 1384 and 1395 translations (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 100). Also, in the original of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, Protestants did also include the Old Testament Apocrypha, but later they were dropped from it (for the last time around 1666).
An Anglican canon, with the Apocrypha declared not to be of ‘divine origin,’ appeared in 1644 (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 109). In 1826, after the Protestant National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha, they ceased to be in most Protestant Bibles.
Protestants have claimed the Apocrypha were originally included in their Bibles for historical, not scriptural, value.
The following is from the Statement of Beliefs of the Continuing Church of God:
THE HOLY BIBLE
The Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and was finalized by the Apostle John (see also Who Gave the World the Bible?). As commonly divided, it is a collection of 66 books, with 39 from the Hebrew scriptures (The Old Testament Canon) and 27 from the Greek Scriptures (The New Testament Canon). Scripture is inspired in thought and word and contains knowledge of what is needed for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 4:4; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Scripture is truth (John 17:17) and is infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts (John 10:35).
We in the Continuing Church of God are following the Apostle Jude’s admonition “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches clearly are NOT doing this as they adopted books that early leaders knew were not part of the true canon.
The 39 books that are in the Old Testaments that those in the COGs and Protestant Churches use are the correct books of the Old Testament.
Even the Roman Catholic supporting Jerome recognized some of the flaws of the deuterocanonical books. His original research made him only accept the 39 Old Testament books as truly valid and seemingly he partially consulted with those who held Church of God doctrines when he put his books together.
The true Old Testament canon is based on the biblical criteria and this canon essentially was affirmed during the 2nd century by one considered to have been faithful (Melito).
While it is true, in a sense, that ‘the Church gave the world the Bible’ — it was the church established by Christ through the apostles Peter, Paul, and John and their successors as inspired by the Holy Spirit that did so. This was the Church of God which Polycarp and other early saints became part of.
Consider that:
just because a book is found in the Septuagint, doesn’t automatically mean that it is canonical. Do you believe the Prayer of Manasseh is canonical? The Vulgate’s 3 Esdras, or Maccabees 3 and 4? How about Psalm 151 or the Psalms of Solomon? No, I don’t think you would believe that, yet these books are in some of the Septuagint manuscripts. So, don’t try to say that the deuterocanonicals are equal in inspiration to the protocanonical books just because they are found in the Septuagint.
(http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html)
The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the “admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deutero writings … the non-citation of the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament” (Reid, George. Canon of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3., 1908), while also admitting that most of the other books of the Old Testament are cited in the New.
Jesus and His apostles DID NOT consider that the extra books that the Church of Rome accepts were valid or that they were validated by events recorded in the New Testament.
Quotes in the New Testament from the Greek
Does the Greek New Testament ever quote the Septuagint?
Here is what the Greco-Roman Catholic priest Jerome wrote about the Book of Matthew and its use of the Old Testament:
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene”. (Jerome. De Viris Illustribus [On Illustrious Men]. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892)
This was cited to show that the Hebrew scriptures were what were normally used for scripture in Palestine/Judea.
But, since nearly all of the New Testament was written in Greek, it is logical that Greek translations were sometimes quoted.
John Ogwyn noted:
Should we be concerned that some New Testament quotations from the Old Testament {seemingly} were taken from a Greek translation—the Septuagint—rather than from the Hebrew Masoretic Text? Greek was the most universal language at the time when the New Testament was being written.
Gentile converts were unfamiliar with the Hebrew language and even most Jews outside of Palestine no longer had a good reading knowledge of Hebrew.
The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that had been made in Egypt.
But it was not the only Greek translation of the Old Testament available in the time when the New Testament was written. There was at least one Greek translation that differed significantly from the Septuagint.
It was used by Theodotion in the second century ad for his revised Greek text of the Old Testament.
The book of Daniel, as preserved in Greek translation by Theodotion, matches far more closely the quotations from Daniel in the New Testament than does the Septuagint, for instance. Though none of the Greek translations of the Old Testament were totally accurate, most of their deviations from the Hebrew text were in areas that did not affect the overall sense of the message …
Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno in their comprehensive work, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text.
The New Testament writers only made use of Septuagint quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text. (Ogwyn J. How Did We Get The Bible? Tomorrow’s World, January-February 2002)
Essentially, John Ogwyn was saying that New Testament writers did not rely on translated passages of the Old Testament into Greek that differed materially from the original Hebrew. Therefore, one should not conclude that the entire, flawed, Septuagint was acceptable to them (though where it was not flawed and a proper translation, they could have used it or something similar).
Others have claimed that:
TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE QUOTATIONS from the OLD TESTAMENT FOUND IN THE NEW DO NOT AGREE VERBALLY WITH THE READING OF THE SEPTUAGINT translation of the Old Testament. (Do We Have The COMPLETE BIBLE? Ambassador College Publications, 1974)
Now, the Eastern Orthodox believe that the majority of Old Testament quotes are based on the Septuagint, but that is mainly an assumption since most are not direct quotes, which one would logically conclude they would have to be if the Septuagint was the preferred and divinely inspired source.
While the Eastern Orthodox generally claim that the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible with vowels and limited punctuation) is flawed and has been changed, their proof is lacking (more on the Masoretic Text is in the next chapter).
This author states that the type of ‘proof’ that the Septuagint was inspired is reminiscent of the same type of ‘proof’ that people bring out when they claim that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and not Greek (for specific details, check out the following link: www.cogwriter.com/greek-aramaic-hebrew-new-testament.htm).
Furthermore, unlike the Septuagint, the Masoretic text does not include the Old Testament Apocrypha.
The Septuagint is NOT a better version of the Old Testament than the Masoretic Hebrew text. Plus it has non-biblical books.
