Wow. This is what i call an excellent and genuinely scholarly lecture on the LXX. A very clear, faithful and balanced view on this subject as opposed to those very speculative perspectives on the Septuagint vs the Hebrew by so much modern scholarship.... good work, Dr Riddle... 😃💙👍👍
Excellent work, it's good to see how the methodology and presuppositions of treating the New Testament affects how one treats the Old Testament manuscripts
We don't need to be afraid of God's word being "corrupted" -- He is big enough to take care of all things. And we don't have to blindly assume that the Masoretic text is the "only" source of truth. We can compare all the Hebrew manuscripts (DSS, Samaritan Pentateuch, etc) and the Greek manuscripts and the Pesheta's etc. It's all good sourcing for textual analysis. I recommend reading "Invitation to the Septuagint" by Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva for another perspective.
Dr. Riddle’s reference to Romans 3:1-2 is a standard argument for Jewish custody of the text of the OT. Perhaps what was not covered was whether or not this custody was temporary or permanent. Romans laters says the Jews have been cut off so that Gentiles could be grafted in. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, this insistence that the Jews are custodians of the OT text (and it must be in Hebrew) goes against the principle of preservation via believers. In NT textual criticism, his branch of thinking requires believers to be custodians of the NT text. In the OT, we have Jesus haters-who did a number of shockingly wicked things to oppose Christianity. The idea that their depravity was so great that they would tamper with their text is not beyond the pale.
His quibble over the definition of LXX is quite a side-show, and is actually undermining to his position in a variety of ways. If the NT authors used a variety of Greek translations-and they differed from each other-and the inspiring Spirit was fine with that-what does that lead us to do today? Argue for a singular, monolithic Bible? It rather shows that God is comfortable-or at least understanding of-a variety of wordings of his Scriptures. Other KJV proponents have gone so far as to claim that there are no OT quotations at all in the New. This variety of wording does not bode well for an “every word” preservationist. Furthermore, if he insists we stop using the term “the LXX/Septuagint” because of variances, will he also support a removal of the term “the KJV” from our vocabularies as well? There’s variances of wordings in all the various editions. (Ironically, he gives an author from 1935 as the source of this “monolithic” approach to the LXX as an “it”. And yet the AV itself has a preface, where the translators (via Miles Smith) remind us “It is certain that the Septuagint was not completely sound and perfect. In many places it needed correction - and who was more qualified for this work than the apostles? Yet, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them to take what they found. (since it was, for the most part, true and sufficient) rather than to make a new translation… Now we answer our adversaries. We do not deny - in fact, we are firm and assert - that the very poorest translation of the Bible into English, produced by men of our profession [Protestants] (for we have not yet seen any of their [the Catholics] translations of the entire Bible), contains the word of God-no, is the word of God.” Seems like a monolithic reference to the LXX there. Furthermore, Riddle himself quotes Turretin in his lecture referring to it as “the Septuagint all the way back in the mid-1600’s. It appears that a monolithic approach to the LXX does predate 1935-by just a few years!
What is admitted here in this lecture-but not developed-is the reality that the NT authors used Scriptures of multiple sources, and in places where they render words differently, and at times--much differently- than the Hebrew MT. How is God ok with this? Can we be ok with Bibles with variances? Look no further than the AV. Riddle says “that is uh a very significant uh movement that's happened uh in recent days especially in the last uh 150 years or so there's been a movement toward justifying amending the Masoretic text because it was used by early Christians even Apostolic uh authors”. This movement of amending the Masoretic text has been going on much longer than recent days. Kethiv/Kere readings abound in the MT, and they are direct evidence of editing going on. The Masoretes themselves recorded 10 places they changed the text. Much more importantly however, the AV itself edits the Masoretic text in some readings. Four examples will follow:
Joshua 21:36-37. These verses are missing in the Masoretic text of the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525. LXX, Vulgate and Syriac include them. The parallel text in I Chronicles 6:63-64 includes them. The KJV translators edited there text here. In Jdg. 10:4 the AV edits the Masoretic Text. In order to avoid a nonsensical repetition, the KJV translators assumed the pointing to be in error on the Hebrew term for “donkeys” (2nd occurrence). The Hebrew consonants for “cities” and “donkeys” are identical, and they knew the Masoretes had erroneously pointed the vowels identically with the first occurrence meaning “donkeys” and “cities” as implied by what followed. This reading is confirmed by the LXX. Thus their harmonization here is context dependent. If the prior phrase were not there to indicate the difference, the term would have been only known as “donkeys”. In Amos 8:8 The MT reads “like the light,” whereas the King James Version, following some specific Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, Vulgate, Targums, and Syriac, read “like the River,” in harmony with the final phrase of the verse and with Amos 9:5. Seemingly the MT is missing the Hebrew letter “Yod” due to scribal omission. II Samuel 23:8 is harmonized with I Chronicles 11:11 via italics. Notice the Hebrew words הֽוּא־עוֹרֵ֧ר (1 Chr. 11:11 WTT) and ה֚וּא עֲדִינ֣וֹ (2 Sam. 23:8 WTT). What happens in II Samuel 23:8 is that the KJV translators take the Masoretic text as written to translate “He” and “Adino” and they they choose between Kethiv/Qere (Eznite) and then they insert italics based off of I Chronicles 11:11 WHICH TAKES THE SAME CONSONANTS of already translated word “Adino” but repoints them to say “He raised/lifted up”. Thus, they smooth out the Hebrew text issues by inserting content from I Chronicles. Furthermore, the “eznite” K/Q reading is swapped for “the spear” of I Chronicles 11. The Hebrew text as written has no verb in II Samuel 23:8. It seems clear that the I Chronicles 11 reading is superior, smooth, and sensible.
Regarding the LXX as “the Bible of the early church”-let’s pause and ask a simple question-how many believers read and/or spoke Hebrew in the 1st century? Few-especially non-Jewish believers. Did these believers have an OT? Yes or no. The fact that variances existed among documents does not prove that there was not “A Bible of the early church”. In fact, it was standardized enough that the Jews undertook 3 different revisions of it to try to lessen the Christological doctrines found therein. There’s a level of scholarly obfuscation going on that requires a good bit of careful history and logical perception to dig through everything. Notice his slight of hand regarding Apostolic citations of the OT. He reframes the variances in this manner: “sometimes we're simply seeing their Spirit-driven Apostolic writing of scripture”. No Dr. Riddle-this would be the “Spirit-driven Apostolic RE-WRITING of Scripture”. Is the Scripture changeable? In his explanation of the Acts 15 quote, Dr. Riddle suggests a “Spirit-inspired interpretation.” However, the lead in phrase says “ And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (Acts 15:15 KJV)”. Notice the lead-in says “the words of the prophets” and “it is written”. If James is changing terms and giving a new interpretation, doesn’t this mean James is leading apart from the words of the prophets with new terms? The whole force of the text is that the OT, as it stands, directly teaches this truth. Furthermore, Dr. Riddle side-steps the reality that the LXX was there and in use, and James was simply referencing it. The source of the term “Adam” (rather than the MT “Edom”) was not James himself, but rather the LXX translator(s) who went before him! Does Dr. Riddle point out that the verb has a difference-and when compared in Hebrew it boils down to one letter difference? No-he passes this by. In fact, the phrase in the MT, as it stands, has no bearing on Gentiles coming to Jesus, but rather speaks of the Jews possessing them! It is completely different in meaning. How can James declare on the authority of the prophets something that is different from what the prophets said?
Ultimately, Dr. Riddle needs to decide if the Masoretic text is perfect, unblemished, and needs no editing. For if it is pristine, the KJV erred when they edited it-in a variety of places. Thus, the KJV must now need editing. If the MT does need editing, then with what shall it be corrected? The LXX? Hebrew manuscripts? DSS? And to whom shall this honor be given? Jews alone? (Then he would need to sit and let the unbelievers do their work…)
The septuagunt is not theopneustos the Hebrew is. However, the problem of all transmission of the Hebrew over time would face the same textual issues that we have in the NT text. The translators of the Greek OT saw the same problems. I would say that the Hebrew is to be the sole basis for all translations and variant readings found in the Syriac the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Torah etc should be noted. Notes of this sort are a wonderful and profitable thing when studying Holy Writ. The ideal Bible should have critical and exegetical notes. Including the Targums for the OT. Knowledge is always a good thing. Those who know and love the truth as it is in Jesus welcome knowledge and as much of it as we can bear.
Yet another excellent lecture from Dr. Riddle! Thank you!😊🙏📖
Wow. This is what i call an excellent and genuinely scholarly lecture on the LXX. A very clear, faithful and balanced view on this subject as opposed to those very speculative perspectives on the Septuagint vs the Hebrew by so much modern scholarship.... good work, Dr Riddle... 😃💙👍👍
Thanks for the encouragement Helge. SDG!
Amen to that!
Nice analysis! Thank you.
Excellent work, it's good to see how the methodology and presuppositions of treating the New Testament affects how one treats the Old Testament manuscripts
Thanks for both your preparation and presentation of this material.
Well done!
Nicely done. Thank you!
We don't need to be afraid of God's word being "corrupted" -- He is big enough to take care of all things. And we don't have to blindly assume that the Masoretic text is the "only" source of truth. We can compare all the Hebrew manuscripts (DSS, Samaritan Pentateuch, etc) and the Greek manuscripts and the Pesheta's etc. It's all good sourcing for textual analysis. I recommend reading "Invitation to the Septuagint" by Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva for another perspective.
Dr. Riddle’s reference to Romans 3:1-2 is a standard argument for Jewish custody of the text of the OT. Perhaps what was not covered was whether or not this custody was temporary or permanent. Romans laters says the Jews have been cut off so that Gentiles could be grafted in. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, this insistence that the Jews are custodians of the OT text (and it must be in Hebrew) goes against the principle of preservation via believers. In NT textual criticism, his branch of thinking requires believers to be custodians of the NT text. In the OT, we have Jesus haters-who did a number of shockingly wicked things to oppose Christianity. The idea that their depravity was so great that they would tamper with their text is not beyond the pale.
His quibble over the definition of LXX is quite a side-show, and is actually undermining to his position in a variety of ways. If the NT authors used a variety of Greek translations-and they differed from each other-and the inspiring Spirit was fine with that-what does that lead us to do today? Argue for a singular, monolithic Bible? It rather shows that God is comfortable-or at least understanding of-a variety of wordings of his Scriptures. Other KJV proponents have gone so far as to claim that there are no OT quotations at all in the New. This variety of wording does not bode well for an “every word” preservationist. Furthermore, if he insists we stop using the term “the LXX/Septuagint” because of variances, will he also support a removal of the term “the KJV” from our vocabularies as well? There’s variances of wordings in all the various editions. (Ironically, he gives an author from 1935 as the source of this “monolithic” approach to the LXX as an “it”. And yet the AV itself has a preface, where the translators (via Miles Smith) remind us “It is certain that the Septuagint was not completely sound and perfect. In many places it needed correction - and who was more qualified for this work than the apostles? Yet, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them to take what they found. (since it was, for the most part, true and sufficient) rather than to make a new translation… Now we answer our adversaries. We do not deny - in fact, we are firm and assert - that the very poorest translation of the Bible into English, produced by men of our profession [Protestants] (for we have not yet seen any of their [the Catholics] translations of the entire Bible), contains the word of God-no, is the word of God.” Seems like a monolithic reference to the LXX there.
Furthermore, Riddle himself quotes Turretin in his lecture referring to it as “the Septuagint all the way back in the mid-1600’s. It appears that a monolithic approach to the LXX does predate 1935-by just a few years!
What is admitted here in this lecture-but not developed-is the reality that the NT authors used Scriptures of multiple sources, and in places where they render words differently, and at times--much differently- than the Hebrew MT. How is God ok with this? Can we be ok with Bibles with variances? Look no further than the AV.
Riddle says “that is uh a very significant uh movement that's happened uh in recent days especially in the last uh 150 years or so there's been a movement toward justifying amending the Masoretic text because it was used by early Christians even Apostolic uh authors”. This movement of amending the Masoretic text has been going on much longer than recent days. Kethiv/Kere readings abound in the MT, and they are direct evidence of editing going on. The Masoretes themselves recorded 10 places they changed the text. Much more importantly however, the AV itself edits the Masoretic text in some readings. Four examples will follow:
Joshua 21:36-37. These verses are missing in the Masoretic text of the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525. LXX, Vulgate and Syriac include them. The parallel text in I Chronicles 6:63-64 includes them. The KJV translators edited there text here.
In Jdg. 10:4 the AV edits the Masoretic Text. In order to avoid a nonsensical repetition, the KJV translators assumed the pointing to be in error on the Hebrew term for “donkeys” (2nd occurrence). The Hebrew consonants for “cities” and “donkeys” are identical, and they knew the Masoretes had erroneously pointed the vowels identically with the first occurrence meaning “donkeys” and “cities” as implied by what followed. This reading is confirmed by the LXX. Thus their harmonization here is context dependent. If the prior phrase were not there to indicate the difference, the term would have been only known as “donkeys”.
In Amos 8:8 The MT reads “like the light,” whereas the King James Version, following some specific Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, Vulgate, Targums, and Syriac, read “like the River,” in harmony with the final phrase of the verse and with Amos 9:5. Seemingly the MT is missing the Hebrew letter “Yod” due to scribal omission.
II Samuel 23:8 is harmonized with I Chronicles 11:11 via italics. Notice the Hebrew words הֽוּא־עוֹרֵ֧ר (1 Chr. 11:11 WTT) and ה֚וּא עֲדִינ֣וֹ (2 Sam. 23:8 WTT). What happens in II Samuel 23:8 is that the KJV translators take the Masoretic text as written to translate “He” and “Adino” and they they choose between Kethiv/Qere (Eznite) and then they insert italics based off of I Chronicles 11:11 WHICH TAKES THE SAME CONSONANTS of already translated word “Adino” but repoints them to say “He raised/lifted up”. Thus, they smooth out the Hebrew text issues by inserting content from I Chronicles. Furthermore, the “eznite” K/Q reading is swapped for “the spear” of I Chronicles 11. The Hebrew text as written has no verb in II Samuel 23:8. It seems clear that the I Chronicles 11 reading is superior, smooth, and sensible.
Regarding the LXX as “the Bible of the early church”-let’s pause and ask a simple question-how many believers read and/or spoke Hebrew in the 1st century? Few-especially non-Jewish believers. Did these believers have an OT? Yes or no. The fact that variances existed among documents does not prove that there was not “A Bible of the early church”. In fact, it was standardized enough that the Jews undertook 3 different revisions of it to try to lessen the Christological doctrines found therein. There’s a level of scholarly obfuscation going on that requires a good bit of careful history and logical perception to dig through everything.
Notice his slight of hand regarding Apostolic citations of the OT. He reframes the variances in this manner: “sometimes we're simply seeing their Spirit-driven Apostolic writing of scripture”. No Dr. Riddle-this would be the “Spirit-driven Apostolic RE-WRITING of Scripture”. Is the Scripture changeable? In his explanation of the Acts 15 quote, Dr. Riddle suggests a “Spirit-inspired interpretation.” However, the lead in phrase says “ And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (Acts 15:15 KJV)”. Notice the lead-in says “the words of the prophets” and “it is written”. If James is changing terms and giving a new interpretation, doesn’t this mean James is leading apart from the words of the prophets with new terms? The whole force of the text is that the OT, as it stands, directly teaches this truth. Furthermore, Dr. Riddle side-steps the reality that the LXX was there and in use, and James was simply referencing it. The source of the term “Adam” (rather than the MT “Edom”) was not James himself, but rather the LXX translator(s) who went before him! Does Dr. Riddle point out that the verb has a difference-and when compared in Hebrew it boils down to one letter difference? No-he passes this by. In fact, the phrase in the MT, as it stands, has no bearing on Gentiles coming to Jesus, but rather speaks of the Jews possessing them! It is completely different in meaning. How can James declare on the authority of the prophets something that is different from what the prophets said?
Ultimately, Dr. Riddle needs to decide if the Masoretic text is perfect, unblemished, and needs no editing. For if it is pristine, the KJV erred when they edited it-in a variety of places. Thus, the KJV must now need editing. If the MT does need editing, then with what shall it be corrected? The LXX? Hebrew manuscripts? DSS? And to whom shall this honor be given? Jews alone? (Then he would need to sit and let the unbelievers do their work…)
I hope all is well Matt.
What is the name of the Hebrew Text that the Greek OT was translated from? As opposed to the Masoretic text...
Would it be plausible to say that Greek translations of the OT were the Bible of the early church?
Latin vulgate only! 😅.
The septuagunt is not theopneustos the Hebrew is. However, the problem of all transmission of the Hebrew over time would face the same textual issues that we have in the NT text. The translators of the Greek OT saw the same problems. I would say that the Hebrew is to be the sole basis for all translations and variant readings found in the Syriac the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Torah etc should be noted. Notes of this sort are a wonderful and profitable thing when studying Holy Writ. The ideal Bible should have critical and exegetical notes. Including the Targums for the OT. Knowledge is always a good thing. Those who know and love the truth as it is in Jesus welcome knowledge and as much of it as we can bear.