Aspirin99

I stumbled upon this site that claims that the LXX is a hoax created as result of Origen's Hexapla. Trying to keep an open mind, I started reading some of the claims. Apparently, evil Origen and Eusebius probably did it. The claim is that the NT manuscripts that quote from the LXX were all created after the big LXX hoax.

I thought of Philo's discussion of the Greek translation of the Torah. Even if the letter of Aristeas was fake, Philo's discussion of the matter would place the Greek Torah in existence prior to the Christian era. Right?

See the argument here:

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/LXXHOAX.htm

Sorry, in advance, for the huge font and glaring colors.

S.C.Carlson

Maybe it is possible after all to judge a website by its garish fonts and colors.

Aspirin99

RED DAVE

OKAY, not believing in the bullshit of the link in the OP, that the LXX was written by Origen in the 3rd Century, but knowing little or nothing of the LXX, existing manuscripts, etc., could someone refute the link as an educational service?

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Hi Aspirin,

Personally I think it is important to separate two issues.

a) translation of the Penteteuch to Greek and its wide distribution
b) translation of the full Tanach to Greek and its wide distribution

If you remember, the evidence here from Josephus was strong that he did not have the full Greek Bible. And with Philo you have a tremendous preponderance of Penteteuch quotation and lots of questions about his text and even his possible Hebrew skills and text. (Rarely can you match up either Philo or Josephus with the 4th-century Greek OT manuscripts.)

Incredibly we have proof positive, the smoking cannon, of major Greek OT tampering towards the NT in the Psalm 14 verse which took from Romans 3. (There was also Jewish-favored translation, especially Aquila. We know of no such specific tampering as Psalm 14 although some Jewish history actually claims to have messed with the Greek.)

Thus the idea that various Greek similarities within the 400AD manuscripts could be similar smoothing to the Psalm 14 abomination is very strong. Clearly the Greek OT scene was quite a mess.

And note that these supposed NT-LXX congruent readings are almost always orphans, not having support from any Hebrew manuscripts or commentaries and midrash, or the DSS, the Targumim, the Vulgate, the Peshitta or even the early church writers. A strong indication that the Greek OT was 'smoothed' towards NT prophecy passages post-facto.

Thus the Greek OT is really only worthwhile for some difficult words, not as a competing or alternative text. Nor was it an NT base.

As for Jim Searcy's use of 'hoax' (as do some others) my concern is that this is an unnecessarily charged and accusatory word and confuses a situation that is actually quite fascinating to see with sincere unglasses scholarship and a sound mind and some research time.

It is likely that a Penteteuch in Greek was circulating in the first century (although that does little to help the very weak "NT from LXX" arguments) and that distinction will generally not be discussed clearly in the hoax claims.

Shalom,
Steven

Ben C Smith

From that site:

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians of questionable character and faith like Jerome, Hort, and Carson, agree that this is probably true.

I had to chuckle. I was going to say that this is probably the first time those three names have ever been uttered in a single breath, but I did a Google search just to be sure, and came up with this (in PDF):

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians, Jerome, Hort, and our contemporary D.A. Carson, would agree that this is probably true.

Slightly different wording, but obviously there is a connection. I hope this is the same person writing for both web pages.

Ben.

Steven Avery

Hi Ben,

The first is Jim Searcy of GJIGT (Great Joy in Great Tribulation) while the second looks to be from New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger, mentioned in the Jim Searcy article. Likely Jim Searcy is using the Gail Riplinger material.

Shalom,
Steven

S.C.Carlson

Unlikely. The person you quoted first appears not to know who D. A. Carson is.

Doug Shaver

OK, I checked it out, and I found this just before the bibliography:
That tells me all I need to know about the quality of scholarship being presented on that site.

Steven Avery

Doug, beware of the genetic fallacy.

Now I would be the first to agree that the quality of scholarship of those who accept the King James Bible as the inspired and pure word of God is not always what it should be. There are a number of popularist authors that I quote rarely or never. And there are some cases where there is simply an error or two that needs proper correction.

Yet there are others who are strongly pro-KJB like Edward Hills and Thomas Holland and Michael Maynard (and lesser-known web-writers like Marty Shue and Timothy Dunkin and Will Kinney and Brent Riggs and Brandon Staggs) whose material I can utilize with an expectation of careful research and scholarship. With sometimes sharp yet measured speech.

In fact some of the very best material is by such authors, often complimenting excellently the historic scriptural writings of William Whitaker, John Owen, John Gill, Dean John Burgon, Charles Forster and many others. Whose own views may be Traditional Text or something else and yet give great insight into the purity and perfection of scripture.

Shalom,
Steven