The KJV and Septuagint: A Comparison

In the late-to-mid third century BC, a group of Jewish translators gathered together in Alexandria to begin a Greek translation of Old Testament books. Because of the tradition that there were around 70 translators assigned to the task, the work was given the name Septuagint (sometimes called LXX, after the Roman numeral). Much later on, in the early seventeenth century AD, a group of English translators would meet to begin the translation of the Authorized Version (AV), which would become known historically as the King James Version (KJV). Since their conceptions, both translations have experienced similar traditions and misconceptions regarding how they developed and what, exactly, they are. Sometimes they are used as a kind of supreme authority or standard, while other times they are worshiped almost like gods. I thought it would be worth going over some of the comparative problems that occur regarding these two translations.

It should be noted that this is examining the beliefs stemming from King James Onlyism and what one might call "Septuagint-Onlyism," or at the very least the more extreme opinions of those who adhere to the Septuagint. This is not meant as an attack against those who personally like the KJV as a favored translation, nor against those who study the Septuagint or appreciate it as a historical document relevant to the study of scripture.

1) The translators were divinely inspired.

The most extreme of KJV-Onlyists believe that God Himself had a hand in the translation of the book, so much so that some have claimed "[so-called] mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation" (pg. 19; Ankerberg). By contrast, the original KJV translators saw themselves in a much more humble light. In an introduction to the first edition of the KJV, entitled The Translators to the Reader, the authors of the KJV said "a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures," meaning that reviewing other translations besides the KJV was helpful in determining the original wording of scripture. One of the guidelines given the translators, in fact, was that they were to review previous translations (including Tyndale's and Geneva's) when dealing with more difficult passages (pg. 71; White). The translators of the original AV certainly did not consider themselves higher or better than any translator who had come before them, nor any that would come after. They considered their translation one in a great line of English translations, and recognized as language developed that many more translations would be needed in the centuries to come.

With the Septuagint, there are many traditions surrounding its creation. One of the most popular is that the 72 translators came from Palestine and were placed on an island until their task was completed. Another tradition says that each translator worked alone, shared their results, and found they had miraculously come out with the exact same wording all 72 times. A more "refined" version of this tradition says that the 72 translators broke up into teams of twos, and each group of twos came up with the exact same wording. However, the language of the Septuagint suggests it was not done by Palestinian Jews, as "there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin" (pg. ii; Brenton). Also, the tradition regarding the translators breaking up and coming up with the exact same wording for their translation holds little historical merit.

Some have proposed that, because the New Testament writers used the Septuagint, the translation must have a divine source. In fact, the New Testament writers were not always reliant upon the Septuagint:

In the consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, - a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version, which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. [pg. iv, Brenton]

Some of these changes are fairly minor. For example, in Christ's use of Deuteronomy 6:13 in Matthew 4:10, it states at the end "and serve him only" (NASB). However, the word "only" (monos in the original Greek) is not in the Septuagint translation - it was added here as emphasis, given the context of Christ being tempted to worship Satan.

2) There has only been one version of the translation throughout history.

Many KJV-Onlyists have the idea that the KJV they hold in their hand is the same KJV that was published in 1611, and thus for more than three hundred years the English translation hasn't seen a single change. This simply isn't true - the version which the vast majority of people use today is actually the 1769 edition, completed some 158 years after the first edition of the KJV. Compare Genesis 1:2 with the two versions:

And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. [1611 printing]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [1769 printing]

While the overall context stays the same for the most part, there are major changes to spelling and punctuation. There are bigger differences still - for example: Psalm 69:32 originally read "seeke good" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "seek God"; Jeremiah 49:1 originally read "inherit God" in the 1611 edition, while the 1769 edit changed it to "inherit Gad."

This doesn't cover that, up until the 1769 edition, there were dozens of editions of the KJV printed. In fact, a new edition of the KJV was printed the very next year, in 1612. These later editions were not always perfect - one contemporary source made the claim that, of the six editions of the KJV printed in the 1650's, over 20,000 errors could be found (pg. 78; White). Some of these were even "embarrassing printing errors":

The 1613 printing omitted the word "not" from the seventh commandment, inadvertently "encouraging" people to commit adultery. This King James edition became known as the "Wicked Bible." Another printing of the KJV became known as the "Unrighteous Bible" because it stated that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven. And a few printing errors continue to occur in the KJV and other versions today. [pg. 13; Ankerberg]

In the same fashion, some believe that the Septuagint they hold in their hand is the exact same Septuagint that has been seen throughout history, right from its publication down through the Church Fathers. I touched on this in another post, but it's worth going over again here. In essence, the idea that the copy of what we have today that is known as "the Septuagint" is the same as  what was first translated by the initial seventy translators is simply false. Many seem to think that Church Fathers were walking around with one copy of the Septuagint under their arms, and they were all pretty much the same - such a mindset is likewise false.

For one, the initial translation of the Septuagint was simply the Law, not the entire Old Testament. The rest of the books were translated somewhat piecemeal throughout the next hundred years, and while we don't know the exact date of when all books were completed, the prologue from the Wisdom of Sirach suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament was completed sometime by the second century BC, so that by the time of Christ the Old Testament was readily available in Greek.

Even after this, the history of the Septuagint is not complete, for three major revisions happened afterward: the first, by a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, in the early second century AD; the second, in the late second century AD, by a Jewish convert named Theodotion; the third, by a Samaritan convert to Judaism named Symmachus. The revision by Theodotion is especially important for this discussion, as his version was actually used many times by Church Fathers (such as Justin Martyr) over and against the wording of the "original" Septuagint. His version of Daniel was especially widely used by Christian apologists and theologians. Among the Jews in Asia Minor and the Middle East, the version of the Septuagint by Aquila became popular and was used as their "official" version of the Septuagint well into the Middle Ages.

This is not to say that we have absolutely no idea what the Septuagint said - we simply have to be careful when we say "Church Fathers quoted the Septuagint" or "early Christians used the Septuagint." It's a much more complicated situation than we may realize.

3) The translation is pure and nearly without error.

A lot of people believe that the KJV is the most pure and undefiled version of the Bible available, but the plain facts present a problem with this assumption.

For one, the KJV is based on far less manuscripts than modern-day translations. Whereas today we have over 5500 manuscripts to use in translating and studying the New Testament, the translators of the KJV had only five or six late manuscripts (12th-14th century). While the overall message and theology of the KJV and later manuscripts differs little from modern translations and earlier manuscripts, there are significant results of this. One is the inclusion of major textual variants, many of which are not considered to be part of the earliest manuscripts and readings. The most famous example of this is the longer reading of 1 John 5:7, aka the Comma Johanneum, which was believed to have been introduced through a note on a Latin manuscript and hence is not original.

For another, there are noticeable translation errors within the KJV. Some are perceived contradictions within scripture that do not exist in the original Greek (cf. Acts 9:7 versus 22:9 in the KJV). Others are supposed references to mythical animals, such as unicorns (Nu 23:22, De 33:17, etc.) and satyrs (Isa 13:21; 34:14). Some critics of Christianity have used the KJV's mention of unicorns and satyrs against the Bible, not seeming to realize that the original text doesn't speak of such animals; on the other hand, some KJV-Onlyists, in an attempt to respond to this dilemma, have gone so far as to try to prove unicorns existed!

In regards to the Septuagint, it has been said by some that it is one of the most accurate translations of the Old Testament into another language. In actuality, modern scholars are often critical of the accuracy of some of the books. It must be remembered, as explained earlier, that the Septuagint was a translation over time, with only the books of the Law being completed first, with the others completed bit by bit over time, most likely by different parties. We are able to discern different translators because of the varying skills and styles of translating found within it.

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst. [pg. iii; Brenton]

Even contemporaries of the Septuagint offered some constructive criticism regarding its language. While discussing the translation of his grandfather's work from the original Hebrew into Greek, the author of the Wisdom of Sirach makes reference to the Septuagint in his introduction:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.  [source]

Some of the errors in the Septuagint especially came out during Jerome's translation of the original Hebrew text into the Latin Vulgate.

In the early fifth century Jerome provided a fresh translation of the Old Testament in Latin. What made his work unique was that it was based not upon the Greek Septuagint version, but upon the actual Hebrew of the original Old Testament. Jerome was one of the very few early Christians who was able to read both Greek and Hebrew. As he translated from the Hebrew, his version varied both in content (the LXX having some additions and some deletions when compared with the Hebrew text) and in style (Jerome did not feel he had to accept every interpretive translation that was to be found in the Septuagint)...One aspect of his work that caused consternation among the people was that he did not use the traditional translation in the book of Jonah regarding the "gourd." The Hebrew is difficult here, and Jerome decided not to follow the LXX's identification of the plant as the "gourd," but instead followed the Palestinian Jewish understanding and identified it as the caster-oil plant. [pg. 11; White]

Some have attempted to put forward that the Septuagint is a far more accurate translation than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, based on a conspiracy theory that the Jews purposefully changed their scripture to take out all references to Jesus. While it is true that there are some moments in the Masoretic Text where the Jewish scribes clearly wanted to minimize the potential of Christian use, and did so in the process of adding the vowel marks, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed greater light on the accuracy of the Masoretic Text. It has shown that, by and large, the wording of the Old Testament has remained fairly consistent between the years before Christ and the years after Christ.

Keep in mind that all of this is not saying that the KJV or Septuagint are completely unusable. No translation is perfect, and some are more flawed than others. The key is identifying where these flaws are and being able to deal with them if they come up. It is also important to know, when the enemies of Christ turn to finding flaws in his written word, where they are attacking something on the basis of what is said, and where they are attacking something on the basis of how it was translated.

-------------

Works Cited

Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene: Harvest House, 1996.

Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

Virgin versus Young Woman in Isaiah 7:14

An article online that looks at the issue of how to translate the word in Isaiah 7:14, especially in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint.

Is the virgin birth really predicted in the Old Testament?

Silly Arguments Part II

Well, kids, that ol' Facepalming Picard means that it's time once again for a very silly argument.

Has this ever happened to you? Have you ever been sitting in a Starbucks, minding your own business, enjoying a good venti-sized vanilla bean frappacino, when suddenly some guy crashes his Dodge Ram truck through the window, rolls out the driver door dressed as Ronald McDonald, and proceeds to tell you that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD? You were probably thankful that you hadn't been hit, then after those sentiments of survival subsided you immediately asked the person a bit more about their position. You come to found out that they believe the copy of the Septuagint written before Jesus' time was merely the Law, and the rest of the Old Testament wasn't translated until the second century AD. Hence, when Matthew and the other Gospel writers quote the Old Testament in Greek, they were either inventing their own Greek verses, or the New Testament as a whole was written from the middle to late second century. You then tased him, not for what he said, but for the simple fact he's a lunatic crashing through buildings dressed as Ronald McDonald.

OK, maybe I've exaggerated this account just a little, but I did hear someone make the argument mentioned here.

The biggest thing we need to do is discuss some biblical history. When the books of the Old Testament were originally written, they were a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In the middle third century, under the funding of Ptolemy Philadelphus (then ruler of Egypt), it was decided to translate the Law into Greek, which had become the international language during the inter-testamental time. According to various stories, seventy-two Jewish scholars were selected, and finished translating the Law during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. It was perhaps the first major organized translation of scripture in history, similar to the work done by the King James Bible translators thousands of years later (and like the KJV, there's much mythology around its translating...but that's for another post).

The original Septuagint, as previously stated, wasn't the entire Old Testament, but rather was simply the five books of the Law. The question then comes: when were the other books finished? We have no solid evidence for the exact date that all the books of the Old Testament were finished. There are many signs, however, that much of it was done before the time of Christ, as seen by external evidence: the mid-second century Jewish historian Eupolemus mentions a Septuagint Books of Chronicles; the writer known as Aristeas quotes from the Septuagint Job; a footnote in an early Septuagint version of Esther suggests that it was in circulation before the end of the second century BC; the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in the apocryphal 1 Maccabees 7:17.

One of the biggest evidences we have that the Old Testament was completed by the time of Christ is found in the apocryphal work known as the Wisdom of Sirach. In the introduction, the author writes:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. [RSV]

While speaking of translating from the Hebrew into the Greek, the author makes mention of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books." This is compounded with the fact that Philo and Josephus - two well known Jewish authors who lived during the lifetime of the early Christian church - quoted extensively from the Septuagint, and not just the Law. All historical signs point to evidence that the Septuagint, as in the complete Old Testament, was completed by the time of Christ. Most scholarly sources place its completion in the middle second century BC.

So, was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? Absolutely positively not - there is too much evidence to the contrary. So...where did this idea that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD come from? One can't just make this stuff up out of thin air. I personally believe the individual making this argument was confusing it with the various streams of Septuagint revisions, most of which happened about the second century AD. The ones most known about:

The revision by Aquila (early 100's AD). By this time, the Septuagint was becoming unpopular among Jewish circles, partially because of the rise of Christianity which heavily utilized the Septuagint. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, attempted to make the first major revision to the Septuagint, and did so by translating from the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word. This made for a somewhat awkward rendition, but one that was popular among the Jews for the next 500 years or so. Today it is only known through fragments.

The revision by Theodotion (late 100's AD). Theodotion was a Jewish convert that relied heavily upon the original Septuagint. His version was heavily quoted by many Church Fathers (including Justin Martyr), and his version of Daniel was especially widely preferred by many over the Septuagint's version.

The revision by Symmachus (soon afterward). Symmachus was said by the writer Epiphanius to have simply been a Samaritan convert to Judaism, although Jerome and Eusebius claim he was an Ebionite. He sought to smooth Aquila's translation by using the original Septuagint and Theodotion's work as reference. His translation likewise only exists in fragments.

Perhaps a worthy final mention is that of the Church Father Origen (late second century, middle third century AD). Origen was a Christian who understood Hebrew, and saw differences between the Masoretic texts of his time and the Septuagint. He collected together what was probably the first interlinear Old Testament, as well as the first example of textual criticism. What he did was place side by side: the Hebrew; the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters; Aquila's work; Symmachus' work; the Septuagint; and Theodotion's work. Origen even included notes and symbols that signified when the Septuagint added or left out specific parts of a verse (not unlike the use of italics and footnotes in today's translation). Unfortunately, this momentous work only exists in fragments today, although it helped to preserve examples of the Septuagint revisions done by the other three men.

So to repeat our question of the day: was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? As we've seen, some streams of it were, but the Old Testament translated into Greek was finished and widely available by the time of Christ. The writers of the New Testament were not making up Greek verses, nor is the Septuagint evidence that the New Testament was written in the second century AD. The contention made at the beginning of this post is, as stated before, simply a silly argument.

------

UPDATE, February 12, 2013: Another possible source of this confusion might be that the individual is using KJV-Only sources. Some KJV-Only advocates try to teach that the Septuagint comes from a later date, even after the time of Christ. One such KJV-Only advocate writes: "People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ are living in a dream world." (pg. 50; Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1976).