Which translation do you use and why?

[Borealis]

1. I used the Douay as a representation - the Douay came from Egpyt where all the modern versions came from. Regardless of what the official Roman bible is all modern versions came from Egypt. Two lines of Bibles - one came from Antioch area (KJV line) andthe other came from Egypt (all modern versions).

First of all, to correct something in your previous post to this one, the Douay-Rheims is almost a contemporary of the KJV; it was completed about a decade prior to the KJV, and in fact the KJV translators you revere so greatly used the Douay-Rheims as a check on their own work (compare the two versions if you like, and you'll see the similarities all over the place).

Now, the Douay-Rheims did NOT come from Egypt. It was a translation of the Vulgate, which was itself a Latin translation, by St. Jerome, of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Jerome did a lot of work in Palestine; he spent years with the Jewish scholars (which might explain his personal opposition to the deuterocanonicals as being scripture, since that group of Jews rejected them). I suggest you be a little more thorough in your research and don't focus entirely on the KJV.

2. Not saying some good has not come from them but nthing like what the English, Scottish, and American missionaries did from 1700 to 1930. As long as the "natives" became Catholics it appears they could retain their pagan ways and this was aceptable to the Catholic missionaries. China and Japan wanted to run out the Jesuit "missioanries" because they kept meddlin in "political" affairs. When the AV missionaries moved in lives changed - cannibals got saved and quit eating folks. this is a whole different subject aht will never be agreed upon here.

You're darn right it won't be. I'll leave this alone because I'm not in the mood to get warned or banned.

3. False - been refuted by tons of stuff = just search google for a start. The AV translators had eveything available to them including the Catholic texts and wouldnt touch them witha ten foot pole.

Nice try. The Vulgate was one of the sources used in the translations, because Latin was still a very common language in the West, and most scholars knew it (because they studied the classics, unlike today). And as I said, try comparing the Douay-Rheims to the KJV. The similarities can't fail to jump out at you.

4. I thiink we understand that and I've never heard of an AV man who thought that.

You wouldn't know it from some of the things I've seen and read.

5. Now, Borealis -You shouldn't have brought this up Borealis. I'm going to be nice here and will not bring up Rome's history in this area for this is not the point of this post or thread. I'm sure there was some of what you are alluding to do but nothing like what Rome has done. Now, for the peace of this forum let us agree to leave this area alone or it will get real ugly here and the Mods will have to step in.

Fair enough.

 

[AVBunyan]

What you quoted--I simply meant that it was your turn to reply. But if you are tired of this discussion, that's fine.

I understood what you meant - no problem. My right wrist is aching and mentally a bit drained.

But for now I do feel we've gone as far as we are going to go on this tough issue.

Sincerely - Been nice chatting with you but gotta go.

Untill we meet again on another thread.

May God bless

 

[Ave Maria]

I use as many translations as I can get my hands on. Why? Because I can't read Greek and Hebrew so I trust in English translations which are fallible.

 

[Borealis]

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's "The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence" - chapter on "The Mythical LXX" - if that is unacceptable to you then just search google using key words - I did and found mutiple articles in less than 10 minutes. If that is still not enough then there is nothing more I can do. continue to believe what you've been taught - won't bother me a bit.

I stick with my original position. Again, I get the idea no matter what some of you folks read you will not break away from the world's thinking on this subject.

Good Lord...I refuted this myself a few months ago in response to one of your threads. Ruckman has been disproved for quite a while now.

But, since you seem to have a short-term memory on this subject, I'll be nice and provide the evidence you refuse to share.

Let's start here, shall we?

http://www.kjvonly.org/aisi/2004/aisi_7_7_04.htm

The creation of this “no LXX until Origen” fable can be traced with certainty to Peter Ruckman. He freely acknowledged to Gary Hudson that he originated this view. Typical statements from Ruckman’s published writings include: "This 'LXX' [Ruckman here refers to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek Manuscripts which included the OT in Greek, and date from about 350 A.D.--ed.] was written more than 250 years after the completion of New Testament canon and it is the only 'LXX' anyone knows anything about" (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 54); and again, "This is the so-called 'LXX' which the young minister sees referred to in the commentaries. It was written well over 100 years after the New Testament was complete" (ibid, p, 60). And once more--“until Origen picked up his pen . . . there wasn’t a Greek Old Testament in sight.” (ibid., p. 61)

Ruckman in fact even admits that there are fragmentary pre-Christian and pre-Origen manuscripts of portions of the LXX (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, pp. 50, 51; his presentation is both quite incomplete and inaccurate) but refuses to admit that such evidence--or a hundred times more of such evidence,--would be sufficient to prove that the LXX did exist before Origen: “If a thousand pieces of papyrus were recovered with Old Testament Greek on them, written before 100 B.C., nothing could bolster that sagging testimony of the LXX,” (p. 51). In short, he is not open to consider evidence, undeniable evidence, overwhelming evidence, which contradicts his views. By his own admission, then, truth, evidence and facts are not sufficient to persuade him. He is a willfully blind fool, as are all who follow him.

Now...this next site I'm not too keen on, since I sense an anti-Semitic bent to the pages. However, the point is there if you can work around the 'Jews aren't nice people' slant.

From Qumran caves one, four, five and six come biblical texts in Hebrew which, according to reports, are related to the parent text of the Septuagint historical books. Particular interest attaches to Samuel fragments from cave four, because the text-form shows more obvious affinities with the Septuagint than do the others. Of course, it has long been agreed that the parent text of the Septuagint Samuel contained recensional divergences from the Massoretic Text.

What this means is that the oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text. The importance of Lampe's comment on Samuel is that Jews and Judeos have long argued that the differences in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are due to faulty translation on the part of the Septuagint translators, not due to the translators actually having a different Hebrew text than that represented by the Masoretic Text. However, these Hebrew copies of Samuel from the 2nd century BC show clearly that the Hebrew then current was accurately translated in the Greek Septuagint. This means that the Hebrew was later corrupted and changed, and thus the Masoretic Text represents a corrupted and altered version, but the Septuagint represents the ancient original Hebrew.

 

[Borealis]

I accidentally submitted the previous post before I had the other cites I wanted to get. So consider this part II.

We have more on the Dead Sea Scrolls right here:

=excerpt]Cave 4 has the oldest copy of part of the Septuagint, which is the text of Leviticus, dated 100 B.C.. Cave 7 has a copy of Exodus chapter 28. Other scrolls contain a copy of Numbers and two copies of Deuteronomy. Two scrolls are very curious. One scroll appears to be the Hebrew behind the Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel. Another scroll of Zechariah, Jonah, and Malachi are Hebrew that appears to be between the Septuagint and the Massoretic text. The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is 60 verses (1/8 shorter) than the Massoretic text. The Dead Sea scroll 4QJerb supports some of these absences. One scroll contained the Hebrew of Psalm 151, which is also in the Septuagint.

Now, here are a few historical facts that simply cannot be refuted.

* The entire Palestinian region in the late 4th Century B.C. was conquered by Alexander the Great, as was most of the Persian territory and Egypt.
* As a result of the conquest of the region, Greek became the common language in the entire region, remaining so even after the Romans conquered the area (they considered Greek to be the educated language, and most educated Romans spoke and read Greek).
* The Jews were scattered about the Middle East; up until 1948, many of their descendents STILL lived in those same settled areas.
* These scattered Jews in Egypt, Greece, Persia, and other areas spoke Greek as their primary language, and many of them knew little or no Hebrew.
* Hebrew wasn't even spoken in Palestine outside the temples; Aramaic was the lingua franca of the region.

Now, given all this, and given the evidence I've posted above, there is absolutely no possible way that the Ruckman theory you've espoused here (which, I've learned, even many KJV-onlyists consider a lie) can be true. The only way many Jews could have learned the Scriptures was in Greek, which meant they had to have a translation from the Hebrew long before Christ's time.

Oh, you want more? Alright, then. A quotation from Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Christ. I quote from On the Life of Moses, II.

On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh.

Josephus, another 1st century Jewish writer, also writes of the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. I'll merely quote the title of Chapter 2:

HOW PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS PROCURED THE LAWS OF THE JEWS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO THE GREEK TONGUE AND SET MANY CAPTIVES FREE, AND DEDICATED MANY GIFTS TO GOD.

Admittedly, both of these writers use the Letter of Aristeas as their source for this story, a letter who's origins are indeed uncertain (though most scholars, with the exception of Ruckman, agree that it was written about 100-150 B.C. Ruckman claims Philo wrote it, but doesn't provide any actual evidence). Nevertheless, they are clearly discussing the origins of the Greek Septuagint, which according to Ruckman (and AVBunyan) didn't exist for another three hundred years or so. Either these two men were both confused time travelers, or Ruckman is wrong. Occam's Razor suggests the obvious answer.

Still not enough? Fine then...let's look at the people who disagreed with the Jews on a fairly fundamental issue, the Christians themselves.

If you've never done so, I recommend reading some of the Early Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc.). These men lived in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. They quoted extensively from the Scriptures. However, these men were not Hebrews; they were Greek-and Latin-speakers. For them to quote Scripture, IN GREEK, means that they had a Greek translation to work from. They had to; they didn't have access to the Hebrew writings because they didn't understand the language.

Read Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, and tell me if you find anything familiar there. Here's a hint: Chapter XVI is basically a quotation of Isaiah 53. In fact, it has only very minor textual differences from the Greek manuscripts dating back to the 4th century. So...either the Christian Church in the 4th century collected all sorts of manuscripts (not just the Bible, but as many writings of the Church Fathers they could get hold of) and made sure their 'new' Greek translation of the Bible matched ALL of those writings...OR there was already a Greek translation to work from. I repeat, Occam's Razor is a useful tool.

Give up yet? No? Try this: Have you ever heard of the Old Latin version of the Bible? It predates the Vulgate, and according to Edward J. Hills (among many, MANY other scholars), it was a translation of the Septuagint, done in the 2nd Century A.D. Well, how could there be a translation of something that didn't exist for another two hundred years? You MIGHT be able to use this as evidence that the Septuagint didn't exist until the 2nd Century (if those pesky Dead Sea Scrolls didn't exist), but Ruckman's theory is blown out of the water by the OL.

As I stated earlier, Ruckman admits that contrary evidence exists; he just ignores it. I hope you are less obdurate than he.

 

[JohnJones]

I posted something regarding the question of where I can find a "traditional" LXX on a KJVO board. Here's a reply I got:

Yes, the Orthodox have a LXX that is different than Rahlf's, Brenton, Swete or whatever.
And they have a project going on to translate it into English.

So you have a "traditional" LXX, a "eclectic-scholarly" LXX, a "Vaticanus+" LXX,
and maybe one or two others. (This is my understanding from poking around
research combined with the LXX email forum. They often point out how different
are the various texts, and that there is no "standard" LXX.. of course they come
from the scholarly community, and reject the traditional Orthodox text.)

So, they differ widely. However all are woefully corrupt, but as Teno points out
the LXX defenders will play the shuffle-game very nicely. One follow has an article
attacking the excellent Floyd Nolan precisely with the shuffle game, using Brenton,
which has little scholarly or traditional support.

Although this fellow acknowledges the existance of a traditional GO LXX, he doesn't offer any info on where one can be found. According to him, LXX.org is basing their translation on several different LXX versions. I personally emailed the people at LXX.org to ask what text they are using, but the email bounced back.

 

[Knowledge3]

I have been switch back and forth from the KJV and some NIV..I will likely switch back to the original KJV while not giving up my loyalty to the NIV.

The KJV is myserious because even though it as 200,000 errors it is amazing langauge to intrepet and read from....

 

[Theophorus]

I posted something regarding the question of where I can find a "traditional" LXX on a KJVO board. Here's a reply I got:

Yes, the Orthodox have a LXX that is different than Rahlf's, Brenton, Swete or whatever.
And they have a project going on to translate it into English.

So you have a "traditional" LXX, a "eclectic-scholarly" LXX, a "Vaticanus+" LXX,
and maybe one or two others. (This is my understanding from poking around
research combined with the LXX email forum. They often point out how different
are the various texts, and that there is no "standard" LXX.. of course they come
from the scholarly community, and reject the traditional Orthodox text.)

So, they differ widely. However all are woefully corrupt, but as Teno points out
the LXX defenders will play the shuffle-game very nicely. One follow has an article
attacking the excellent Floyd Nolan precisely with the shuffle game, using Brenton,
which has little scholarly or traditional support.

Although this fellow acknowledges the existance of a traditional GO LXX, he doesn't offer any info on where one can be found. According to him, LXX.org is basing their translation on several different LXX versions. I personally emailed the people at LXX.org to ask what text they are using, but the email bounced back.

All I know is that my priest sells two in the book store, one is Brenton's, the only english one available I believe, but he uses something else, all in Greek. I do not believe it is based on Brenton's text because he has pulled it out to compare to Brenton's, and at times disapprovingly shook his head.
I'll have to check with him about it.

 

[AliOgg]

In many ways I'm just a beginer but it appears to me that all copies,translations etc. whatever, have been made with God's permission otherwise they would not have been made.Just because man does not understand why God has given us (apparently) differing versions doesen't give any of us rights to condemn,anyone or anything,especially something the Lord God Almighty has allowed, and also who are we to judge him who was made in the likeness of God.These are dangerous waters and shifting sands, please watch what you say, there are many baby christians and other vulnerable souls who can be easily confussed by the apparent lack of brotherly love and understanding between christians.

You guys scare me, what if there is an undiscovered copy far older than anything we have now,what then, what if the Lord Himself comissions another version in order explain things better in times of change and turmoil,what then?

If the Lord speaks in one way to one man and another way to another man then is this not the Lord's business.

"When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If if it is my will that he remain untill I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" "

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[The thinker]

Good News bible here,

nice and easy to read because its in modern day english

 

[brandplucked]

Hi Borealis and others who may be interested in discussing the LXX issue.

The view that the LXX took many of their readings from the already completed New Testament is NOT a Ruckman theory only. I will demonstrate this in the pages to follow.

I have read Kutileks article and I totally disagree with him. I will point out why this is so.

NO LXX

The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did NOT quote from a Pre-Christian LXX.

There are Four main points to this article. I will list them, and then expand the points in order.

#1. The Letter of Aristeas. Other sites to consult which debunk the idea of an widespread pre-Christian LXX version, and show the utter spuriousness of the Letter of Aristeas.

#2. The Bible itself contradicts the idea that God would approve of an authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that would then be used by the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the making of the New Testament.

A. The Levites were guardians of the O.T. Scriptures B. "Do not go back to Egypt" C. Jots and Tittles shall not pass away D. The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ.

#3.There is no solid proof of a Pre-Christian LXX.

What is generally referred to as the LXX today is nothing more than compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and these do not even agree with each other. Versions like the RSV, NIV will often reject the Hebrew readings and then tell you in a footnote: "SOME LXX versions say...." Not all LXX versions read the same. It is utterly impossible to reconstruct what a pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like.

#4. The LXX "quotations" and references in the Old Testament which differ significantly from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves were taken directly from the already completed New Testament writings, and then transplanted back into the Greek O.T. translations in an effort to harmonize the different readings. This is the exact opposite view of the one held by many scholars and seminarians today.

Part Two will consist of An explanation of some of the alleged LXX readings.

These are the 4 main points I wish to cover in this article.

#1. The Letter of Aristeas - Many Bible defenders have written articles refuting the fallacious idea that the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ quoted from a Greek translation called the Greek Septuagint, or simply referred to as the LXX.

Here are a couple of good articles that give you a good overview of why the claims of those who promote the LXX are false.

Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones has written a very imformative article dealing with the evidence and history of the alleged pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.

http://www.floydjones.org/LXX.pdf

Likewise, David W. Daniels has written a concise and well thought out article exposing the spurious nature of the claims made for a pre-Christian Septuagint version, titled "What is the Septuagint". He goes into specific detail about the alleged Letter of Aristeas, which is the primary "historical" document used to buttress the idea that a formalized LXX was actually put together. -

http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm

Many LXX defenders who quote people like Justin Martyr, Philo, or Josephus, in support of a pre-Christian LXX version, overlook the fact that these men are merely parroting the same information found in the Letter of Aristeas. None of them have any independent evidence of a pre-Christian LXX.

For a scholarly work by Professor Dr. James Davila regarding the "quotes" of certain church fathers regarding the LXX please see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html

#2. The Bible itself contradicts the LXX

The LXX got its name by supposedly having been written by six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Israel who traveled to the city of Alexandria in Egypt, where they miraculously produced their Greek translation from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. But there is a minor problem. The custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures were members of the tribe of Levi alone - not the other tribes. Not only that, but many orthodox O.T. Jews hated Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and never would have accepted an O.T. translation made from a heathen, Gentile language. A Greek Old Testament translation into a pagan tongue and produced by the other eleven tribes in addition to the Levites is UNSCRIPTURAL and unacceptable.

2A. The Levites were guardians of the O.T. Scriptures

Malachi 2:7-8 "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts."

The covenant of Levi was with this tribe alone, to copy and guard the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "And it came to pass, when Moses made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

Ezra 7:6 "This Ezra went up from Babylon: and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given." Ezra was a Levite and a scribe of the law of God.

Davis's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that "the Levites were employed as scribes for the business of repairing the temple", and it refers to 2 Chronicles 34:13-15 "...and of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters. And...Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD."

2B. "Do not go back to Egypt"

In the book of Jeremiah God brought judgment upon the nation of Israel because of their idolatry. There was a remnant left in the land, and yet these too rebelled against God and his prophet. In Jeremiah 42 the people feign a desire to know the mind of the Lord, but in reality they wish to go their own way back into Egypt. The prophet Jeremiah clearly tells them "when ye shall enter into Egypt...ye shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach...O ye remnant of Judah, GO YE NOT INTO EGYPT; know certainly that I have admonished you this day." Jeremiah 42:13-19.

In Genesis 26:2 there was a famine in the land where Isaac dwelt, "And the LORD appeared unto him and said, GO NOT DOWN INTO EGYPT...Sojoun in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee."

God delivered His people out of Egypt, and did not want them to return there. In Matthew 2:12-21 when Herod sought to kill the baby Jesus, Joseph was warned of God to take his wife Mary and the child Jesus and flee into Egypt. However this was done to fulfill the spiritual type and prophecy - "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, OUT OF EGYPT have I called my son."

This is a direct reference to Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called MY SON OUT OF EGYPT." It is of interest that the LXX translation is wrong here. It says "out of Egypt I called HIS CHILDREN", instead of the Hebrew text which says " I called my son".

While in Egypt there is no recorded revelation given by God until He told Joseph to leave Egypt and "go into the land of Israel".

Jerusalem will be in a corrupted state in the last days. In Revelation 11:8 we read of the beast who arises to kill the two prophets sent from God. "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom AND EGYPT, where also our Lord was crucified."

Many commentators have pointed out the great truths of the book of Genesis, which begins with the words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The book goes on to tell of the creation of Adam in innocence, his fall, and the sad history of his descendants which ends with these final words: "in a coffin in Egypt."

The Bible itself tells us what God thinks of anything associated with the land of Egypt.

2C. Jots and Tittles shall not pass away

The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

"Jots and Tittles" have only to do with the Hebrew written tongue. They are not found in a Greek language translation of the Old Testament Scriptures.

God committed His O.T. words of truth only to the nation of Israel, not to the Greek, the Syrians or the Romans. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20

Romans 3:1-2 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

It is supremely important to recognize the truth that God gave His inspired words in the Old Testament Scriptures in the Hebrew language and only to the nation of Israel. Any translation that rejects or departs from the Hebrew text is not the pure words of God.

The Greek Septuagint changes the Hebrew text in literally thousands of places, and omits hundreds of whole verses from the Hebrew Scriptures. It changes many numbers and names, and the book of Jeremiah alone is over one-eigth shorter that its Hebrew counterpart.


Will K
(more to come)

 

[brandplucked]

Those who defend the LXX version today are men like James White and Doug Kutilek who do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is now the inspired, infallible, complete and inerrant word of God. They always promote the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, or Holman Standard, and all of these versions frequently reject the Hebrew texts and follow various readings of the LXX, the Syriac, or the Vulgate, and none of them do this in all the same places as any of the others. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The King James Bible is the only popular Bible that consistently follows the God inspired Hebrew texts in all its readings.

If you want to know the real reasons these men promote the LXX, just listen to the words of Doug Kutilek.

"If the LXX existed in the days of Christ and the Apostles, and if Christ and the Apostles often quoted from it as authoritative , and if the LXX is demonstrably a less-than-perfect translation of the Hebrew text (as it admittedly is), then we have a clear case of Jesus and the Apostles making good use of and deriving spiritual profit from an uninspired, imperfectly preserved translation.* In short, the example of Christ and the Apostles in their use of the LXX version of the OT demonstrates that it was not necessary that they--or we--have an “infallible and inspired, perfectly preserved” translation before they could know or serve God.* It is therefore not a corollary of perfect verbal inspiration that there must be perfect verbal preservation in translation.* Rather, a translation that is generally good though imperfect in details can be entirely adequate.* It then follows that the very foundational premise of KJVOism--that we must have, and therefore do have such an inspired and infallible Bible translation in the KJV--is exposed as entirely bogus, a sham, a fraud."

Mr. Kutilek then goes on to give us his "opinion" about the LXX, and you will notice his opinion is different than many others in his "No Bible is Inspired" camp. He says (caps are mine) : “My own OPINION, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but PROBABLY by five learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrim; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at different times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of God appointed.* IT IS PRETTY CERTAIN, from the quotations of the evangelists, the apostles, and the primitive fathers, that a complete version into Greek of the whole Old Testament, PROBABLY called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but IT IS LIKELY that some of the books of that ancient version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.”* - Doug Kutilek

Well, there you have it. I was somewhat amazed that Mr. Kutilek would be so out in the open about what his real agenda is, but those are his own words. He has no infallible Bible and promotes the idea that what we have is a diverse ballpark collection of "generally good though imperfect ...adequate translations." Is this what you read in your Bible?

2D. The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ

Dr. Norman Golb demonstrated the fact that the majority of the poetry at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls site) was written in Hebrew. This shows that the Hebrew language was very much in use during the time of the Lord Jesus and the apostles. "Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? The search for the secret of Qumran"; Dr. Norman Golb ISBN 0-02-544395-x

Dr. Golb states (caps are mine): "We must thus observe, as a notable example, how the 'Paean to Alexander Jannaeus' - one of several Jewish historical personalities mentioned in the scrolls - emerges as the work of a Palestinian poet who took pride in that ruler's reign and had a conception of the overall unity of the Jewish nation, both in Palestine and in the widespread Diaspora that already existed long before the destruction of the Second Temple. The hymn is one small fragment among MANY HEBREW POEMS found in the caves that have no sectarian bias. From it, as from others, we may note the lyrical RICHNESS OF ANCIENT HEBREW UP TO THE VERY DESTRUCTION OF THE Second Temple in A.D. 70; and we observe that virtually all of this poetry, as well as OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE PROSE TEXTS, WAS COMPOSED IN HEBREW, disproving the view that Aramaic had overtaken Hebrew as the main language of the Jews in Palestine in the first century A.D."

As the above demonstrates, not only did Aramaic not overtake the Hebrew, but neither did Greek.

#3.There is no solid proof of a Pre-Christian LXX.

Here are a few statements by Jobes & Silva, both of whom are noted LXX scholars and both of whom believed that the New Testament writers made use of the LXX - "We have NO EVIDENCE that any Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior to the second century of this era." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 32. (emphasis mine)

"The great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to RECONSTRUCT the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means UNDOING Origen's labor so as to rediscover the form of the Septuagint in the second century. WITHOUT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily achieved." ibid, p 53.

"There really is no such thing as THE Septuagint. If the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible had been translated at one point in history by one group of translators in one location and for one purpose, then it would be much easier to use the Septuagint as a snapshot of the history of interpretation and theological thought. However, apart from the translation of the Pentateuch (for which we have very limited information), the when, where, and who, and why of the Greek translation of other books is basically unknown." ibid, pg 89-90.

More Quotes from the experts

Eugene Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame.

Dr. Ulrich states: "The oldest extensive manuscripts of the Septuagint that are EXTANT are dated in the fourth century, at least A CENTURY AFTER ORIGEN, so we cannot always be certain that our Septuagint text corresponds to that of his day either in its pre-Origenic or post-Origenic form. (Ulrich, pg. 203)

"We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development-certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmizations." (ibid, pg. 211)

Throughout history various individuals have taken upon themselves to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into various foreign languages. Well into the Christian era, there were at least three individuals who attempted a Greek translation - Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. Yet all three versions differed not only from the Hebrew texts, but from each other as well. Other individuals translated portions of the Hebrew Scriptures into Syriac, Aramaic and the Sammaritan tongues.

The only Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures that possibly predate the New Testament writings are a few scraps of papyrus which contain small portions of a few chapters from the book of Deuteronomy. None of these partial sections are quoted in the New Testament. These are Ryland's Papyrus, Papyrus Fouad, and another labeled 848. All together they contain only part of few verses from Deuteronomy. No one knows who wrote them, and the scholars do not tell us IF they match any of the other LXX's or not.

The oldest piece that exists contains only parts of the following verses: Deut.23:24-31; 25:1-3; 26:12,17, 19; and 28:31-33. That's it!

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX

When it comes to the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems every "scholar" has his own opinion on things, and his opinion differs from everybody else's. The vast majority of the writings found at the DSS sites were written in Hebrew. In fact, in three different types of Hebrew texts. There also were writings found in Aramaic and a very few in Greek.

Also found were texts of several books of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These texts — none of which was included in the Hebrew canon of the Bible — are Tobit, Sirach, Jubilees, portions of Enoch, and the Testament of Levi, hitherto known only in early Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Ethiopic versions. Also found were Ecclesiasticus, first composed in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, and the Letter of Jeremiah, a single chapter attacking idolatry, and Psalm 151 written in Hebrew.

Many scholars, in an effort to support the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version, make mention of a Greek translation of the 12 minor prophets found in the DSS. However, most who mention these fail to give us the whole story about this Greek minor prophets translation, but thankfully, some do.

There is NOTHING at all in the DSS to prove a Pre-Christian Septuagint. The alleged 12 minor prophets in Greek were not found in Qumram but some 12 miles away and they were found with pottery and coins that date well into the Christian era. Charles Pfeiffer says in his book that the coins prove the scroll was written after 200 A.D. (Charles F. Pfeiffer - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, Baker Book House 1969.) This was just some guy making a translation into Greek as they also did with the Aramaic.

Scott Jones, who has examined a lot of the DSS evidence, says: "The so-called LXX quotes from the DSS,fragmentary as they are, are fictitious. They do NOT match the quotations in the LXX of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus, thus proving yet again that what passes for the LXX today is not even remotely what existed prior to Christianity."

Mr. Jones continues: "Take this statement concering the VERY fragmentary scroll of the minor prophets found at Nahal Hever -"...it preserves twenty-four FRAGMENTARY COLUMNS written in the hand of two different scribes. Moreover, THE TEXT THAT IT PRESERVES HAS DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS THAT SET IT APART FROM THE MAIN LXX TRADITION." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 172. (emphasis added). And further -"The order of the twelve prophets apparently follows the sequence of the MT, not the LXX codices." ibid. These 24 fragmentary columns are hardly impressive. Only half of the minor prophets are represented, and only a few verses from each one can be clearly discerned."

Mr. Scott Jones continues: "There were NO Greek LXX bibles found in Qumram and nobody has ever produced one that predates around 320 AD. The Septuagint today is in reality Vaticanus. There are 4 small texts that come from parts of Deuteronomy that they think are pre-Christian, but none of these verses were ever quoted by any apostle. I have yet to see what these fragments actually say in Greek and if they match up with the present day LXX versions."

Other LXX experts admit there is no actual evidence for a BC LXX. Here is Sir Frederick Kenyon: "A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information AS TO ORIGEN'S HEXAPLARIC TEXT and PARTICULAR PASSAGES in the other columns, BUT THESE DO NOT GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text AS IT EXISTED BEFORE ORIGEN; AND THIS REMAINS THE GREATEST PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTS THE TEXTUAL STUDENT OF THE SEPTUAGINT." "The Text of the Greek Bible", Sir Frederick Kenyon, p 35.

Now comes Brenton, who edited a contemporary issuing of the LXX: "It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 BC there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs... we must also bear in mind that we find at this period NO TRACE OF ANY VERSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE JEWS INTO THE LANGUAGES OF OTHER COUNTRIES in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria." Brenton's Septuagint Introduction, Zondervan, from the original 1851, p ii.

With regard to being able to recover a pre-Origenian LXX, Brenton then remarks: "The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about a half century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, AND HENCE THE TEXT OF THE SEPTUAGINT BECAME ALMOST HOPELESSLY MIXED UP WITH THAT OF OTHER VERSIONS." ibid, p vi.

In other words, we can't even reconstruct Origen's fifth column of the LXX, let alone a pre-Origenian Septuagint, much less a BC LXX.

WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?

In his book Forever Settled, Jack Moorman writes on page 13 "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype.

His arguments can be summarized as follows:

The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT A GROUP OF SCHOLARS TRANSLATED THE O.T. INTO GREEK BETWEEN 250 - 150 B.C.

The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.

Jack Moorman continues: No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text."


Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS (Summary of a lecture by J. Davila on 11 February 1999) http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/aristeas.html

Dr.James R. Davila - Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.

Note: The scholar who wrote this is not a King James Only man, and he accepts the widespread idea that there was some kind of Greek translation of the Old Testament. This makes his research all the more devastating to those who promote the idea of a Pre-Christian LXX version. The LXX defenders like to use quotes from people like Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Epiphaneus, Eusebius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr who refer to the Letter of Aristeas as proof of this LXX version, and who themselves further embellished the accounts of this alleged Greek translation.

The account given by Josephus, who is merely repeating the information found in the Letter of Aristeas, can be seen here: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant12.html

For another account of how the Letter of Aristeas is a work of fiction, see Mr. Daniels article here: http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm

I have quoted the more pertinent facts Dr. Davila has put together and capitalized various phrases for emphasis, but you can see the whole article at the site provided. I have taken nothing out of context. - Will Kinney

Professor Davila states: "The title of Aristeas in the MSS is not "the letter of," rather just "Aristeas to Philocrates." OUR EARLIEST WITNESS, the first century CE Jewish historian JOSEPHUS, gives the title as "the book of Aristaeus." Eusebius (the fourth century CE church historian) calls it "On the Translation of the Law of the Jews." The work PURPORTS TO BE an account of the translation of the Pentateuch and to be written in the middle of the 3rd century BCE, BUT IT IS UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT ARISTEAS IS PSEUDONYMOUS AND WAS COMPOSED MUCH LATER..

Aristeas also gives us an unusual answer to one important question we ask of many OT Pseudepigrapha: is it a Jewish or a Christian composition? A straightforward solution is often impossible, but there is one for Aristeas: it was transmitted in a MS tradition by Christians, it claims to be composed by a pagan, yet it was clearly written by a Jew and perhaps went through a couple of Jewish editions. The basic story tells how the Egyptian king Ptolemy II had a Greek translation of the Pentateuch made for the Library of Alexandria.

Josephus, as we shall see, gives us reason to believe that THE TEXT WE HAVE IS INTERPOLATED...In 1968 Sidney Jellicoe knew of 23 MSS dating from the 11th century CE on (i.e., all MS evidence for Aristeas is medieval or later). I am not aware of any new MSS recovered since then .

Aristeas was quite influential in early Christian circles because the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) was adopted by Christians as their inspired scripture to go with the Greek NT.

(Note: Dr. Davila apparently has not yet connected all the dots in his own arguments. He still believes the party line about the existence of an authoritative Greek translation of some kind, that supposedly was used and quoted by the New Testament writers. It is the Catholic church that first propagated the idea that the Hebrew texts had become corrupted and that, in places, it was the alleged LXX translation that "restored" the true text. Today, most evangelicals hold to this same theory, and most modern bible versions are based on the Catholic N.T. texts as well. We live in interesting times. - Will Kinney)

AUGUSTINE (in _City of God_ 18.42-43, written by 427 CE) IS CLEARLY DEPENDENT ON ARISTEAS IN HIS RETELLING OF THE STORY. He mentions that the king was Ptolemy Philadelphus, that Eleazar was the high priest, and that there were 72 translators--6 from each tribe. He also notes that in his time the translation was called the Septuagint. Named after 70 translators, presumably because the "Septuaginta et duum" was too much of a bother to say. But HIS STORY IS AN IMPROVED VERSION which we can trace back at least to the first century CE: the translators independently produced identical translations, thus proving the divine authority of the LXX.

JEROME (a contemporary of Augustine; see his _Preface to the Pentateuch_) knew both Hebrew and Greek and could compare the LXX with the Hebrew Bible, SO HE KNEW AUGUSTINES'S STORY WAS NONSENSE AND SAID SO in the preface to his translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Latin. He does seem to think that whole HB (not just the Pentateuch) was done at once under Ptolemy Lagus (the father of Philadelphus) and he asserts that the translation was distorted because Ptolemy was a Platonist and the translators didn't want to offend him. Jerome's agenda was to justify his own translation of the HB from Hebrew.

EPIPHANIUS (c. 315-403; in _On Weights and Measures_ 3-11) has the wildest version of story. It is partly dependent on Aristeas, but is full of detail about how Ptolemy shut the translators up in pairs and took strict measures to keep them from collusion (even giving them separate cooks, and skylights rather than windows). Having taken these precautions, he then fed each pair of translators one book at a time until each pair had translated every book of the HB, plus the 22 books of the Apocrypha. The king then had the 36 translations compared before him and, of course, they were found to be identical.

IRENAEUS (c. 175 CE; _Against the Heresies_ 3.21.2) tells a brief version of the story, perhaps based on Aristeas, although it contains much else. Ptolemy son of Lagus had 70 elders brought from Jerusalem. He had them do the translations separately so they wouldn't conspire to hide things in their scriptures from him. But when translations were compared, they were found to be identical... Irenaeus uses the story to defend the divine inspiration of the LXX so he can use it for messianic prophecies even when it disagrees with the original Hebrew.

JUSTIN MARTYR (fl. c. 100-165 CE; _Apology_ 1.31), the first extant Christian writer to tell the story of LXX origins. In the context of a discussion of the Hebrew prophets, he relates that Ptolemy king of Egypt SENT TO HEROD (SIC!) king of the Jews and asked for a copy of the books of prophecies. When he found he couldn't read them (they were in Hebrew, after all), he sent again for translators and the books were translated into Greek. There is nothing in this version of the story about separating the translators, but Justin is the first recorded interpreter who misunderstood that whole HB was translated at once, rather than the Pentateuch alone. By implication he was defending the veracity of the LXX, since he goes on to condemn the Jews for disbelieving in Christian claims about messianic prophecies in the OT (including Isa 7:14). JUSTIN MAY HAVE READ ARISTEAS, BUT IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT HE IS JUST WORKING FROM GENERAL LEGEND (perhaps even oral traditions?) ABOUT LXX ORIGINS.

III. Despite its importance for early Christian writers and despite its own claim to be an Egyptian pagan work, the final edition of Aristeas is clearly Jewish.

IV. There is also some evidence for the function of Aristeas (and the translation story in general) during time it was transmitted in Jewish circles. The most important data come from:

JOSEPHUS (_Antiquites_ 12.1-118), who gives a close paraphrase of the work as part of his overall agenda to justify Judaism for a hellenistic/Roman audience. He puts no more emphasis on the translation itself than did the original Aristeas; the real interest of the story for Josephus seems to be the good relations it shows between Jews and the Egyptian king as well as the king's deep respect for Jewish tradition.

It is worth noting that Josephus seems to handle the text of Aristeas with reasonable care. He abbreviates, but there is little indication of deliberate distortion. He changes the name Aristeas to Aristeaus; his numbers frequently vary from our MSS of Aristeas; the details of the king's dedicatory offerings (paras. 57-84) are sometimes different, but this whole passage is very difficult and Josephus may not have understood it much better than we do; he gives the name of the high priest as Elisha (Elissaios) not Eleazar (paras. 97). All these could be variants in the Aristeas MS Josephus had before him rather than deliberate changes by Josephus. Otherwise, he makes a small alteration of the sense of v. 18 in para. 23; he adds a little of own material from another source in paras. 43-44; he adds an interpretive comment in para. 91; he waters down the curse on anyone who alters the translation in para. 109; and makes perhaps one or two other small changes. BUT BASICALLY HE SEEMS TO HAVE SUMMARIZED THE TEXT HE HAD BEFORE HIM.

(Note: In other words, the first person to witness to the alleged translation of a formalized Pre-Christian LXX version, is not an independent witness, but was copying information he had before him from the Letter of Aristeas, which was later repeated and further embellished by other Christians. Most scholars now admit the Letter of Aristeas is a false document, yet the idea of a widespread and authoritative LXX persists.)

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA (around the turn of the era; _Vita Mosis_ 2.25-44) also tells the story of a translation of the Pentateuch under Philadelphus with and outline very similar to Aristeas (IT IS QUITE LIKELY HE READ THE WORK). The king sends an embassy to Judea to get some translators; he treats them to feasting with witty and virtuous conversation and questioning; the translation takes place on the island of Pharos. But Philo seems to be the first to add that by prophetic inspiration all the translators produced exactly the same Greek text independently.

ARISTOBULOS may have written around the middle of the second century BCE; his work is lost except for quotations preserved by Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria. (These are translated in OTP 2, pp. 830-42, esp. 839-40). HE CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE EARLIER TRANSLATIONS EVEN BEFORE ALEXANDER'S TIME (and that Pythagoras and Plato were influenced by them). He refers to a translation under Ptolemy Philadelphus, managed by Demetrius Phalereus. THE LATTER DETAIL IS PROBABLY UNHISTORICAL AND IT IS ONLY KNOWN ELSEWHERE FROM ARISTEAS, so Aristobulus may have read him (or conceivably, the other way around). He uses the story to argue for the primacy of Jewish traditions over Greek philosophy.

V. The content and shape of the original edition of Aristeas is a complicated problem, as Hadas has shown, and as far as I've been able to find, this problem has been surprisingly neglected by scholars. Of 322 total verses, Josephus uses or alludes to vv. 9-81, 172-305 (with 187-292 summarized very briefly in paras. 100-102), and 308-21. Perhaps it's not surprising that he would leave out the introduction and conclusion, but it is more problematical to say he deliberately omitted the other material. Given his care in handling the details of the document, it seems likely that the journey to Jerusalem and Eleazar's comments (vv. 82-171) weren't in the MS he had. This may also be true of the defense of ritual hand-washing in vv. 306-7. In my view IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT THEY ARE SECONDARY ADDITIONS AFTER THE TIME OF JOSEPHUS.

Finally, a word about the date of composition of the first edition. BASICALLY, WE CAN SAY THAT IT WAS OLD ENOUGH TO FOOL JOSEPHUS, but young enough for THE WRITER NOT TO HAVE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF SOME IMPORTANT HISTORICAL MATTERS regarding the reign of Ptolemy II. A good guess might be 100 BCE +/- 125 years. I find it difficult to refine the possible date any further, although others have tried, drawing on more ambiguous evidence such as the political situation presupposed by the work, the geographical and architectural details it presents, its linguistic usage, and parallels with the papyri, especially the Zenon corpus. We have no evidence of the date of the redaction of the second edition (the one in our MSS), except that Josephus didn't have it and therefore it may well have been written after his time.

DR. James R. Davila, Divinity School of the University of St. Andrews, 1999

 

[brandplucked]

No LXX - Part Two

Explanations of some alleged LXX quotations in the New Testament

Early testimony to the non-use of a LXX translation.

John Owen (1616-1683) is a well known Puritan theologian, pastor and prolific Bible commentator. He was a man who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and His Book. If you ever try to wade through any of his theological writings, you will immediately be impressed by his extraordinary scholarship and attention to detail. He knew his Bible.

Here is an online site that contains most of his writings. http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/owen.htm

In his massive exposition of Hebrews, John Owen makes some interesting observations regarding the relationship of the book of Hebrews to the LXX. He was well schooled in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac. He possessed a vast knowledge of manuscripts and other translations. In his work on the book of Hebrews, Owen discusses each passage in great detail about the Hebrew and Greek, along with comments about the LXX translations done by Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus. (These last three men mentioned each attempted a Greek translation of the O.T. after the N.T. was already completed. Today, there is little left of their writings, but we know that they all three differed from each other.)

In his commentary, John Owen makes this amazing statement: "It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded... Should he [Paul] have had any respect unto that translation [LXX], it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth... And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION... Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear, so no reason can be assigned why the LXX - IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE - who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text." Exposition Of Hebrews, Vol I, Exercitation V. (CAPS are mine)

Hebrews 10:5 compared to Psalm 40:6

This example is frequently brought up as being proof that the apostles used the Greek translation of the Septuagint in their New Testament quotations.

Hebrews 10:5 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but A BODY HAST THOU PREPARED ME."

Psalm 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."

Psalm 40:6 in the LXX "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; a BODY THOU HAST PREPARED ME." (Note: If you follow on through the rest of the present LXX translation, it will be obvious that it neither matches the Hebrew nor the New Testament quote in its entirety."

Commentary by A.W. Pink

"But a body hast Thou prepared Me." Commentators have needlessly perplexed themselves and their readers by discovering a discrepancy between these words and Psalm 40:6 which reads, "Mine ears hast Thou opened" or "digged" (margin). Really, there is no discord whatever between the two expressions: one is figurative, the other literal; both having the same sense. They refer to an act of the Father towards the Son, the purpose of the action being designed to make Him meet to do the will of God in a way of obedience. The metaphor used by the Psalmist possessed a double significance. First, the "ear" is that member of the body whereby we hear the commands we are to obey, hence nothing is more frequent in Scripture than to express obedience by hearing and hearkening. Here too the part is put for the whole. In His Divine nature alone, it was impossible for the Son, who was co-equal with the Father, to come under the law; therefore did He prepare for Him another nature, in which He could render submission to Him.

It is impossible that anyone should have ears of any use but by having a body, and it is through the ears that instruction unto obedience is received. It is to this the incarnate Son made reference when, in the language of prophecy, He declared, "He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened Mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back" (Isa. 50:4, 5). Thus the figure used in Psalm 40:6 intimated that the Father did so order things toward the Messiah that He should have a nature wherein He might be free and able to be in subjection to the will of God; intimating, moreover, the quality of it, namely, in having ears to hear, which belong only to a "body."

John Owen's commentary on Hebrews 10:5

He says the translators of the LXX took the reading of the New Testament and placed it in their LXX translation! Please note that the view that the LXX translation was made AFTER the New Testament was complete is NOT A NOVEL POSITION invented by the King James Only people.

John Owen says: "There was of old a different reading in that translation (the LXX). For instead of sw~ma , “a body,” some copies have wtia , “the ears;” which the Vulgar Latin follows: an evidence that A CHANGE HAD BEEN MADE IN THAT TRANSLATION, TO COMPLY WITH THE WORDS USED BY THE APOSTLE. The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the psalmist, or that which was intended in them. HE DID NOT TAKE THEM FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of the Hebrew text.

For although we should not adhere precisely unto the opinion that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the New, which agree in WORDS WITH THE PRESENT TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, WERE BY THE SCRIBES OF THAT TRANSLATION TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INTO IT, — WHICH YET IS FAR MORE PROBABLE THAN THE CONTRARY OPINION, that the words of the translation are made use of in the New Testament, even when they differ from the original, — yet sundry things herein are certain and acknowledged; as, (1.) That the penmen of the New Testament do not oblige themselves unto that translation, but in many places do precisely render the words of the original text, where that translation differs from it. (2.) That THEY DO OFTENTIMES EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE TESTIMONY WHICH THEY QUOTE IN WORDS OF THEIR OWN , neither agreeing with that translation nor exactly answering the original Hebrew. (3.) THAT SUNDRY PASSAGES have been UNQUESTIONABLY TAKEN OUT OF THE New Testament, AND INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION (the LXX) which I have elsewhere PROVED BY UNDENIABLE INSTANCES. AND I NO WAY DOUBT BUT IT HATH SO FALLEN OUT IN THIS PLACE, where no account can be given of the translation of the LXX. as the words now are in it. “ John Owen’s commentary on Hebrews 10:5.


Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Proof that the LXX was copied from the New Testament

Psalm 14 with Romans 3:10-18

In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a list of Old Testament quotes showing the depravity of man and his rebellion against God. These citatations are taken from various Old Testament books, and all of them can be found scattered throughout the Hebrew texts.

The Hebrew texts do NOT contain these nine verses listed one after the other in any place. Instead, they are scattered throughout the Psalms and the book of Isaiah.

Romans 3:10-18

3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. "

3:12 "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

(The first three verses are taken from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3.)

3:13 "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Taken from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3)

* 3:14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:" (from Psalm 10:7)

* 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood:" (from Isaiah 59:7)

3:16 "Destruction and misery are in their ways:" (from Isaiah 59:7) *

3:17 "And the way of peace have they not known:" (from Isaiah 59:8) *

3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (from Psalm 36:1)

In the Hebrew texts both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 read basically the same in the first three verses, and then the remaining content of each differs considerably. They are two different Psalms.

In the Hebrew texts, Psalm 14 reads as it does in the King James Bible. The first three verses are as follows:

Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

"The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God."

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

This is the reading of all Jewish translations, including the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, and the Complete Jewish Bible of 1998. So too read the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV and the Holman Standard. It is also highly significant that the Modern Greek O.T. now omits these extra verses too, and follows the Hebrew readings instead of the previous LXX version.

However the Greek Septuagint version greatly expands Psalm 14 verse 3, and ADDS SIX ENTIRE VERSES WORD FOR WORD taken from the New Testament book of Romans 3:13-18.

I am astounded that some would point to Psalm 14 in the LXX version, and claim that Paul was using this Greek translation when he composed the book of Romans. I guess people believe what they want to believe. Rather, it seems to me Proof Positive that the present day LXX version took the already completed New Testament writings, and transplanted them back into their Greek translation.

IF the original LXX translators had made their translation from the Hebrew texts way back in 300 B.C, as all Septuagint promoters allege, then WHERE did they get these additional six whole verses, and place them word for word in their translation of Psalm 14, when NO Hebrew text reads even remotely like this??? The simple answer is, they got them directly from Romans 3:10-18 AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

Another old translation that also contained these extra six entire verses added to Psalm 14 is the Latin Vulgage of 425 A.D. It is almost certain that the Vulgate translation got these extra verses from the Post-Christian copies of the LXX version, and there is historical evidence for this assertion. Wycliffe's version of 1395 was translated from the Latin Vulgate, as was some of Coverdale's 1535 translation, and they also contained these extra verses in Psalm 14. Today, the Catholic versions are a mixed bag. The Douay-Rheims, and the more modern Douay version of 1950 contain the extra verses, but the newer St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the Jerusalem Bible of 1968, and the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 have gone back to following the Hebrew texts of Psalm 14, and have now correctly omitted these extra verses.

SUPPORT FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE - ST. JEROME

In Adam Clarke's commentary on Psalm 14 he notes: "Yet IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, PARTICULARLY BY ST. JEROME, THAT PAUL DID NOT QUOTE THEM (the verses in Romans 3:10-18) from this Psalm; but...he collected from different parts several passages that bore upon the subject, and united them here....AND THAT SUCCEDDING COPYISTS, FINDING THEM IN ROMANS INSERTED THEM INTO THE SEPTUAGINT, from which it was presumed they had been lost. It does not appear that they made a part of this Psalm in Origen's Hexapla. In the portions that still exist of this Psalm there is not a word of these additional verses referred to in that collection, neither here nor in the parallel Psalm 53."

Now keep in mind, that in working on the Latin Vulgate in 380 A.D., Jerome began to consult the Hebrew texts. Here is testimony from a learned scholar way back in 380 A.D. who held to the idea that the LXX borrowed whole verses from the already completed N.T. text, and transplanted them back into their LXX version.

John Gill comments on Psalm 14:3 - "Here follows in the Septuagint version, ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN COPY, all those passages quoted by the apostle, (Romans 3:13-18) ; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture."

The ancient Syriac Peshitta does not add the extra verses to Psalm 14, nor did John Calvin add nor even mention the extra verses in his Latin translation or commentary. The Bishops' Bible of 1568 did not add the extra verses, nor does any other Protestant Bible I am aware of since then. If current thought about the LXX is right, and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, "quoted" directly from the LXX version of Psalm 14 to give us Romans 3:10-18, then WHY do all modern versions OMIT these words from Psalm 14 NOW?

There are many serious theological problems associated with the acceptance of the idea that there existed a widespread and authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament, that subsequently was used and quoted from by the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. There are several things that smack of the serpent's "Yea, hath God said...?" Satanic spirit.

First of all, this whole notion directly implies that all the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted. This in fact is the position held today by most seminaries and Bible translators. All modern translations like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard frequently reject the Hebrew readings and substitute texts taken from the LXX, the Syriac or the Vulgate. Most versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard tell you this in their footnotes.

This "science of textual criticism" directly contradicts the many verses in the Bible where God tells us not to add to nor take away from His inspired words. "The Scripture CANNOT BE BROKEN" - Jesus Christ (John 10:35). It contradicts the idea that God gave His Old Testament revelation ONLY to the Jews in their own Hebrew language. "Unto them were committed the oracles of God." - Romans 3:2.

For an excellent example of how modern scholars and versions are mixed up by believing some of God's words have been lost, please see my article on 1 Samuel 13:1. - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/wdslost.html

Secondly, the use of the LXX version in "reconstructing" the Old Testament implies that God has failed to preserve His words in an inerrant Book. ALL modern versionists, like James White, Doug Kutilek, Gleason Archer, Daniel Wallace, and most pastors today who are not King James Bible only, do NOT BELIEVE that any Bible or any text is NOW the inerrant, inspired, complete and pure word of God. Ask them. They all take the position that "only the originals were inspired", thus denying that any Bible now exists that is the inspired word of God. All we have, according to their view, is "best guess approximations" or the clichéd "reliable versions" of what God may or may not have said. Of course one man's "reliable version" may differ in thousands of words and hundreds of meanings from another man's "reliable version", but, "Hey, the Message is pretty close, isn't it?".

The modern versions pick and choose among the various and conflicting LXX readings, rejecting some and accepting others, yet not in the same places as do the others. None of them agrees with the other modern versions. "In those days there was no king in Israel: Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

Thirdly, a question that no one seems to ever ask is this: If the alleged Pre-Christian LXX version existed and was so widely spread abroad and used by countless thousands, then why, after the New Testament was completed, did at least three or four different men (Origen, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian) attempt to make new Greek translations between 140 A.D. and 240 A.D.? Other editions of the Septuagint were produced by Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius of Alexandria; and these editions seem to have circulated respectively in Palestine, in Syria and Constantinople, and in Egypt. The practice of revision and of local texts is well evidenced in the case of the Greek Old Testament.

If the Lord Jesus and the apostles had given their seal of approval to an already existing and widespread Pre-Christian LXX version by quoting it in the New Testament, this would have given special authority to that particular version. Then why try to overthrow it by making 5 or 6 new ones?

There are just too many Biblical principles and logical contradictions to accept the idea that an authoritative pre-Christian LXX version existed, much less was used by the Lord and the apostles. "By their fruits ye shall know them" seems to be a good principle to apply to what the fiction of the LXX has produced in the thinking of Christians today.

 

[brandplucked]

Luke 3:36 and the alleged LXX

Who is Cainan in Luke 3:36?

"Answers in Genesis" is usually a very good ministry which defends creationism versus evolution. However the textual consultant, Mr. Sarfati, does the usual tap dance when discussing the inspiration of Scripture. Here are some of his comments. *

Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati -

"The difference is that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. Some skeptics have used this difference to attack biblical inerrancy. However, it is important to note that Biblical inerrancy, derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21 and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and many other places, has to refer to the original autographs that God directly inspired, not to copies or translations. The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today.

1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

So if a copyist of Luke’s gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The evidence shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan."

Mr. Sarfati starts off his "defense" of inerrancy with three huge whoppers. He says: "The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." He then assures us that the Bible's assertions are factually true in ALL THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and that they are the supreme authority in all matters of faith.

How can something that does not exit "be the supreme authority in all matters of faith"? Mr. Sarfati has never seen one of these "original autographs" a day in his life, simply because they do not exist, and he knows they don't exist when he says this. He has absolutely no way on earth of knowing for sure what or what was not "in the original autographs".

His second big lie is implying "A COPYIST of Luke's gospel is responsible for the error". The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greed copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions.

It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three.

His third big lie is telling us: "this is one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." Mr. Sarfati should be well aware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, different names, numbers, phrases and entire verses found in some copies that that are not in others. The New Testaments of such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV (none of which totally agree with each other) differ from the New Testament of versions like the King James Bible, NKJV, Young's, and the Geneva Bible, by about 5000 words! This can hardly be called "extremely few".

Mr. Sarfati also assures us that the oldest LXX manuscripts do not contain the name Cainan, though he has never seen one of these because, again, they don't exist.

Mr. Sarfati continues to make his case for "Christian Logic 101" even worse by saying: "Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy." Why not, Mr. Sarfati? IF it is an ERROR found in every Bible on the earth today, then why is it not proof that the Christian Bible is not inerrant?

Then Mr. Sarfati attempts to bolster the soundness of his arguments by quoting a certain Mr Pierce who summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that EVERY SINGLE COPY WE HAVE OF THE LXX TEXT WAS CORRUPTED SOME TIME AFTER AD 220."

Notice here that Mr. Scarlati quotes from another man who tells us that every copy of the LXX we now have is corrupted, yet Mr. Scarlati earlier referred to the oldest LXX which did not contain the name of Cainan. BUT he himself has never seen, nor can he produce for this hypothetical court of law any such evidence. Do you see how the scholar's game is played?

So there you have the thoughts of "scholars" who assume there is no way the Holy Bible can be correct as it stands today, yet they assure us there is really nothing to worry about, and that God's words were once inspired in the "originals", though they have never seen them.


So how do we explain who this man Cainan is? In Luke 3 we read of the lineage of the Lord Jesus from the side of Mary. There we see "Heber, which was the son of Sala (Salah), which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noah..."

In the Bible, the words "begat" and "son" do not necessarily imply a direct father to son relationship. For example: Matthew 1:8* "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias." Did you know that Uzziah (Ozias) is the great-great-grandson of Joram? Yet the text says, "Joram begat Ozias".

In the book of Ruth we read in 4:17 "And the women her neighbours gave it a name (the child Ruth just gave birth to), saying, There is a SON BORN TO NAOMI; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David."

Naomi was actually the grandmother of the child, yet Scripture calls the grandchild her son, and says he was BORN TO Naomi.

Likewise the gospel of Matthew 1:1 starts off saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Obviously the word "son" does not always mean a direct line from father to son.

The word "son" is also used to denote a son-in-law. King David was Saul's son-in-law, yet Saul calls David his "son" several times in Scripture. In the book of Ruth, Naomi calls Ruth her "daughter", yet in fact she was her daughter-in-law.

Among the various possibilities of who this man Cainan was are the following two.

#1. Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his "father". Remember, the word "beget" does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship.

Or #2. Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad's daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having "begotten" Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad's "son", even though he was in fact his son-in-law.

These are the two possibilities that make the most sense to me, and do not in any way call into question the reliability or accuracy of the Scriptures.

MORE COMMENTS ON THE LXX

John Gill's commentary of Luke 3:36. Though I do not agree with everything John Gill states about this verse, (he does not believe Cainan should be in the text at all), yet it is to be noted that he too believed that the present copies of the LXX got their reading in Genesis from the already completed gospel of Luke.

Gill says: "Which was the son of Cainan…This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in (Genesis 11:12) nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in (1*Chronicles 1:24) where the genealogy is repeated... it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence... and (it was) SINCE PUT INTO THE SEPTUAGINT TO GIVE IT AUTHORITY."

Scholars are a funny bunch. Get five scholars in a room, and you will come out with seven different opinions. Some scholars emphatically tell us that Luke got his reading of 'Cainan' from the LXX itself. Others tell us the opposite, saying that the LXX got it from Luke. And then there are those that tell us that the name Cainan was not in the original LXX NOR in the original gospel of Luke! Go figure.

John Lightfoot comments on the LXX reading of 'Cainan" by saying: "I find a hundred such kind of additions in the Greek version, which the Hebrew text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.

Genesis 10:2: Elisa is added among the sons of Japhet: and, verse 22, another Cainan among the sons of Shem.

Genesis 46:20: Five grandchildren added to the sons of Joseph; Malachi 4:5, the Tishbite.

Exodus 1:11: the city On, is added to Pithom and Raamses.

2 Samuel 20:18: the city Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.

Nor can I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew copy, since some of them are put there without any reason, some of the against all reason, and all of them with no foundation at all."

Commenting on the additional 5 to 7 children added to the family of Joseph by the LXX in Genesis 46:20, Lightfoot says: "Let us add, for example's sake, those five souls which they add to the family of Jacob; numbering up five grandchildren of Joseph, who, as yet, were not in being,--nay, seven, according to their account, Genesis 46:27. Children that were born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, even NINE souls. (The Hebrew says TWO souls.)

"Now, which copy do we think it most reasonable to believe, the Greek or the Hebrew? And as to the question, whether these five added in the Greek were anciently in Moses' text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the transcribers or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Eran, were with Joseph when Jacob with his family went down into Egypt, (these are variations of the additional names added in the LXX copies), and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down? Then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a grandfather; and Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of forehead the interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed."

Lightfoot give his opinion of the LXX version saying: "Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy - AS IT IS SUPPOSED - into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, AND THOSE PRETTY MUCH DISAGREEING AMONG THEMSELVES... The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text...IT IS PLAIN ENOUGH TO ANY ONE THAT DILIGENTLY CONSIDERS THE GREEK VERSION THROUGHOUT, THAT IT WAS COMPOSED BY DIFFERENT HANDS, WHO GREATLY VARIED FROM ONE ANOTHER, BOTH IN STYLE AND WIT."

Will Kinney

 

[PaladinValer]

Bad history again.

Please give factual history instead of conjecture. The Septuagint is far older than any NT book.

 

[The thinker]

WOW... i didn't know it was possible to write that much about which bible you use

 

[Knowledge3]

Bad history again.

Please give factual history instead of conjecture. The Septuagint is far older than any NT book.

Hello PaladinValer..I'm K3.. Nice to meet you..

I read the Septuagint of the Concordia NIV..How ever I am starting switch back to the 1611 KJV. It's mysterious translation despite 200,000 translation errors and those who even want to dispute the validity of the KJV will be hard-pressed not to...

 

[Borealis]

Brandplucked, I'm going to ask you to actually read through my posts (since you wrote a novella in reply, you shouldn't have too much trouble doing so). The Bible is not the only Early Church literature that matches the Septuagint. Many of the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) also quoted from it.

For those who want to know what the early days of the Church were like, the Bible is far from adequate. You MUST read other literature of the era to understand what it was like. ALL the Early Church Fathers quoted from the Septuagint, including the ones who lived long before Origen (in Apostolic times, in fact). The New Testament is only a smattering of the writings that have survived from the earliest days of the Church. These other writings may not be inspired, but that doesn't invalidate them from being highly informative and useful all the same. And again, they ALL quote from the Septuagint. So unless you want to try claiming that Origen went through every single letter written by every single Church Father that he could find and made a Greek translation to match them all...

Why am I even summing up my own posts? Read them yourself! I know the Letter of Aristeas was not written in 258 B.C. But it wasn't written by Philo, either. Ruckman, and those who follow his theory, are blatantly ignoring actual evidence that proves them wrong. It's like a judge ordering a jury not to consider the forensic evidence in their deliberations.