BIB:The Christian's handbook of manuscript evidence  by Peter Ruckman

   chapter 4

   THE MYTHOLOGICAL LXX

   Before plunging into the middle of the stream with the sources for
constructing a Greek text, let us put a foot in the water and feel the
temperature! Here, staring the ministerial candidate in the face is a
monster called "The LXX." What is the "LXX"?

   The standard answer to this question is, "The LXX was AN AUTHORIZED
Greek translation of the Old Testament, made in Alexandria around about
250 B.C. by 72 Jews. It was made at the request of Ptolemy II."

   From this pat answer (given with NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN IT), the
young minister is to assume:

   1. There was a complete translation of the Old Testament in Greek
BEFORE the time of Jesus Christ.

   2. This was the translation USED by Jesus and the Apostles.

   3. Since this translation contains the Apocrypha, Jesus and the
Apostles approved of the Apocrypha (!).

   More cautious souls(1) submit additional information.

   1. The whole legend of the LXX is based on ONE WRITING called "The
Letter of Aristeas."(2)

   2. There is one mention of the Pentateuch ONLY, being translated
into Greek, under Ptolemy Philadelphus. (This is Eusebius, citing
Aristobelus {Praep. Ev. XIII 12,664b}, and the passage is doubtful.)(3)

   3. Philo of Alexandria (20-50?), a Bible-denying Jewish Gnostic,
mentions the translating of (2) and intimates that the translators were
"inspired."(4)

   4. The writer of the "Letter to Aristeas" was NOT who he claimed to
be--a courtier in the court of Ptolemy II-- but he was a Jew, and he
was a Jew who worshipped Greek philosophy, not the Jehovah God of the
Old Testament. (See Rev. Humphrey Hody, 1684, "De Bibliorum Textibus
Originalibus," Oxon, 1705.)

   5. Professor Kahle (1875-1964) said that THERE NEVER WAS ANY SUCH
THING AS A PRE-CHRISTIAN "LXX!"(5)

   But the Christian who is aware of the activities of the real Textual
Critic (Gen. 3:1), will hardly rest his case on the investigations of
men who do not believe that Satan has an interest in Biblical matters.
Let the believer turn to the "Letter to Aristeas" and READ IT.(6) He
will not have gone four pages through the "seven days' banquet" before
he knows exactly where he is! He is ON THE "STOA" WITH EPICURUS AND
ZENO! The questions which "Ptolemy Philadelphus" asks the translators
to test their proficiency are the questions that a Greek pupil would
have asked Socrates or Plato. There is NOT ONE QUESTION OR ONE ANSWER
IN THE ENTIRE DIALOGUE THAT IS RELATED TO BIBLE TRANSLATING, BIBLE
DOCTRINE, BIBLE TRUTH, BIBLICAL LANGUAGES, OR BIBLE PRESERVATION. The
"Philadelphus" of the "Letter to Aristeas" (IF HE EVER LIVED!) was a
consummate idiot. He turned the word of God over to 72 Jewish gnostics
who never got as far as Job and Ecclesiastes in their Bible study!(7)

   Further research into the "Letter to Aristeas" produces the
following interesting information:

   1. There were 72 translators, yet the "translation" is called the
"SEPTUAGINT" (The Interpretation of the 70 Elders), hence: L=50, X=10,
X=10. BUT WHERE ARE THE OTHER TWO? According to the "Letter to
Aristeas" there were six elders from each tribe chosen. Why SIX? (We
read of the "70 elders of Israel" {Num. 11:16}, but not THE 72! Did the
author of the "Letter to Aristeas" realize that he had made a "boo boo"
after writing the mess, and then passed the word on VERBALLY that it
was 70?) The letter says, "72." Was it 70 or 72? Such an error is made
much of where Greek scholars profess to find it in the A.V. 1611 text!
Can Aristeas get away with it?

   2. How did Aristeas get a hold of 12 tribes? Only God Almighty knew
where the 12 tribes were in 250 B.C., and there wasn't a priest in
Jerusalem in 200 B.C. who could find the genealogies for the 10 lost
tribes of II Kings 17. How do you know they weren't in Britain? (That
is what G.T. Armstrong and H.W. Armstrong say!) What would 12 tribes be
doing in Jerusalem anyway?

   However, we are only playing with our scholarly friends. Let us lay
the axe of Truth to the tree of error with gusto this time!

   WHY WOULD A GROUP OF TRANSLATORS FROM "12 TRIBES" TRANSLATE THE OLD
TESTAMENT INTO GREEK, WHEN THE TRIBE OF LEVI (AND THE TRIBE OF LEVI
ALONE), WAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE JOB OF BEING A "CUSTODIAN TO THE
SCRIPTURES"? (Mal. 2:7, Deut. 31:25; 17:18). The "ready scribe" of Ezra
7:6 was a LEVITE!

   Therefore:

   a. If a Jew wrote "The Letter to Aristeas," he was a heretic who
denied his own scripture and invented a fairy story as good as the
Evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.

   b. If he was a Greek, he was ignorant of any Bible truth.

   c. If any scribe came down to Alexandria who was not a Levite, God
wouldn't have fooled with anything he worked on. (Augustine, 354-430,
and Irenaeus, 130-202, thought the Septuagint was "inspired!")(8) Is
God the author of confusion?

   3. By some quirk of fate, every quotation as coming from the "LXX"
(in any periodical, book, commentary, tract, textbook, or reference
book) is a quotation from manuscripts WRITTEN 100-300 YEARS AFTER THE
ASCENSION OF JESUS CHRIST! The novice, about to enter the ministry, is
given the impression that regardless of the authenticity (or lack of
it) of the "Letter to Aristeas," that REAL GREEK OLD TESTAMENT
MANUSCRIPTS are being quoted, which were written BEFORE the time of
Christ. These manuscripts (when run right down to their words), are the
4th century-9th century A.D. manuscripts WHICH BEGIN WITH ORIGEN AND
EUSEBIUS.

   When the Pulpit Commentary, for example, says, "The LXX reads...,"
it is citing manuscripts WRITTEN 200 YEARS (OR MORE!) AFTER THE DEATH
OF PAUL AND JOHN.(9)

   To this day, no scholar has ever produced one Greek copy of the Old
Testament written before 300 A.D. The entire legend of the Septuagint
rests on the flimsy support that the manuscripts written 200-400 years
AFTER the death of Christ MATCH THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS.

   Why shouldn't they?

   ALL THE WRITERS HAD THE NEW TESTAMENT ON THEIR WRITING TABLES.(10)

   The way that A.T. Robertson, Driver (1846-1914), Trench, Alford,
Tregelles (1813-1875), Tischendorf (1815- 1874), Weiss (1825-1918),
Lachmann (1793-1851), Gesenius (1786-1842), Keil (1807-1888), Warfield,
Westcott and Hort get out of this bear trap is by insisting that the
Vatican Manuscript (called "LXX" when referring to Old Testament
quotations!) was A REVISION OF A REVISION (the Hexapla: see next
chapter), which was a REVISION OF THE ORIGINAL "LXX." But did you know
that watching Laurel and Hardy is just as funny and takes a lot less
brains?

   Scurrying around madly in the dunes, to cover up the footprints, the
Select Group now adopts this tactic--they insist that the LXX (which no
one ever found) caused so much antagonism among Orthodox Jews that the
Hebrews made a recension of their own text.(11) There is no more
evidence that this "recension" took place than the Lucian "recension"
of which Westcott and Hort had so much to say.(12) Neither recension
(as Darwin's "missing link," Matthew's "Q Document," the "Second
Isaiah," the "presbyter John," the LXX, or the Loch Ness monster), has
ever been found, nor is there any evidence that either took place.(13)
But it is essential to the reputation and standing of the faculties of
Conservative schools to prove that the LXX was the "Christian's Bible."
So, on goes the fairy story!

   There was this "RECENSION." This recension altered some of the
Hebrew text so that it would NOT match up with the "LXX" because the
LXX had been adopted by the New Testament Christians.(14) This leaves
the student with the impression that the LXX represents AN ACCURATE
HEBREW "ORIGINAL" AND THAT THE PRESENT DAY HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT IS
CORRUPT AND TO BE REJECTED, WHERE IT DOES NOT MATCH THE LXX. This is
the impression that Philo and Origen wanted to make on the Body of
Christ and that is the impression they made.

   Typical of this type of mental gymnastics are the proof texts
produced to prove this relationship. For example, Genesis 15:15, in the
Hebrew says, "THOU SHALT BE BURIED." This is the correct translation
and it is preserved in the A.V. 1611 text. The "LXX" (whatever on earth
that is!) is cited as reading "TRATHEIS" for "TATHEIS." This is the
equivalent of reading "nurtured" for "buried." Swete (1835-1917) and
Thackery (and scores like them)(15) adopt, here, the curious reasoning
that since the LXX said "nurtured" (around 40 A.D.), that this proves
there was a complete Greek Old Testament around before the time of
Christ. However, the reasoning here turns out to be the twisted
reasoning of a serpent, for the reading was not taken from an LXX or
anything like it; the assumption is based on the fact that Philo (the
Jewish Gnostic) has merely said that SOMEONE USED "TRATHEIS" for
"TATHEIS." What on earth does this have to do with an "LXX"? When two
Germans, in 1500, comment on how to translate the Hebrew of I Samuel
6:1, does this prove that there was a German translation of Genesis
current before 1200? Are we to assume that if a lost pagan, in 40 A.D.,
tries to translate one Hebrew word in Genesis 15 into Greek, that this
proves there was a Greek Old Testament circulating all over Palestine?
According to Swete and Thackery--YES.(16)

   Here are four more sample passages which are supposed to prove that
the Apostles were deceived into accepting a Gnostic Bible containing
the Apocrypha. These verses are Matthew 1:21, Acts 7:43, Acts 15:12-18,
and Hebrews 10:5- 7.(17) None of these verses require any study in the
Greek, or the English. They are self-explanatory and need no comment
whatsoever. Acts 15:16 with Amos 9:11, and Hebrews 10:5 with Psalm 40:6
only magnify the terrible truth--i.e. that the LXX translator lived
LONG AFTER the completion of the New Testament canon and altered the
word of God to make scholars of later days think that "the Greeks had
it." The student will observe that the Greek gnostic of the 4th century
who wrote in Psalm 40:6 did it with Hebrews 10:5 on the table.

   You say, "Prove it."

   Easy.

   EVERY MANUSCRIPT CITED FOR THE READING OF PSALM 40:6 IS LISTED IN
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 4, P. 2728, AND
THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPT CITED WAS WRITTEN 250 YEARS AFTER THE NEW
TESTAMENT WAS COMPLETED.

   Were Aleph, B, C, D, F, and L manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
Ephraemi, Rescriptus, Cottonianus, Ambrosianus, and Purpureus
Vindobonensis) written in 200 B.C.? No. 150 B.C.? No. 100 B.C.? No. No,
you can fool A.T. Robertson, Thayer, Trench, Alford, and Westcott and
Hort, but you can't fool God.

   The uncial Greek manuscripts (see chapters five and six) which
comprise the "LXX" in Swete's edition (1887-1894) or ANY OTHER EDITION,
are all written later than the 3rd century A.D. Still the Select Group
and the Scholar's Union have agreed on a fantastic interpretation: that
the WRITER OF ACTS (LUKE) COPIED THE VATICANUS COPY OF AMOS 9:11,
INSTEAD OF THE HEBREW TEXT. To do this, Dr. Luke would have to be born
somewhere between 370 and 400 A.D.! Of course, this is "slandering" the
Select Group, for if put on the spot, the majority would say, "You
falsely accuse us, dear brother. What we believe is that the writers of
Acts 15:16 and Hebrews 10:5 were copying a Greek Septuagint which no
longer exists, but which is found preserved in the Vatican manuscript
(350-370 A.D.)." But if this is so, is it not also true that the Textus
Receptus, which Erasmus printed (1516) "from comparately late
manuscripts," was FROM THE ORIGINAL GREEK which "no longer exists," but
IS PRESERVED IN THE GREEK RECEPTUS? (If it works one way, it works both
ways!) "The majority of scholars" will agree that the Vatican
manuscript represents a text 500 years EARLIER than its own creation;
but they will NOT agree that the Receptus MSS (whose representatives GO
BACK TO THE 3RD CENTURY!) represent a text even 200 YEARS EARLIER, for
200 years earlier would bring us to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS OF THE
APOSTLES THEMSELVES!(18)

   The "proofs" that the LXX preserves part of the original Old
Testament "which we have lost, etc." are Genesis 4:8, I Samuel 14:41,
and I Kings 8:12.

   The reader will observe that the false reading of the LXX in I Kings
8:12 implies that a book is missing from the canon; quite typical of
Alexandrian scholarship! The phony reading says, "Behold, is it not
written in the book of the song?" But my, how this smacks of the
Apocryphal books! The problem lay where most of Origen's problems lay;
he could not find the cross-reference for the Lord saying that he would
"Dwell in the thick darkness" (I Kings 8:12), so ORIGEN INVENTED A
REFERENCE. (Note his reasoning on Matthew 19:9 in Origene's Werke,
Belin, Vol. 10, pp. 385-388, where Origen deleted one commandment
because he could not reconcile it with Romans 13:10!)

   I Samuel 14:41 is quite similar. The "correct reading" (written 200
years after the death of Christ!) supposedly should say, "And Saul
said, O Jehovah, God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant
this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, Jehovah, God
of Israel, give Urim; but if thou shouldest say that the iniquity is in
thy people Israel, give Thummim. And Saul and Jonathan were taken by
lot, and the people escaped."

   This spurious "Old Testament" passage is full of foolishness. In the
first place, the expression "taken by lot" (preserved by Origen and
Eusebius, in verse 41), indicates that a lot has been cast or drawn.
This had nothing to do with the "ephod." The EPHOD was for a man to
"inquire at." (See II Samuel 21:1, I Samuel 23:2,4,6,9, and Exodus
28:30.) It had NOTHING TO DO with "casting lots."

   "Lots" were stones cast into the lap (Prov. 1:14; 16:33), therefore
the corrupt scribe of the LXX is greatly in error, "Not knowing the
scriptures nor the power of God." All this horse-play in the Seputagint
text about "Urim and Thummim" was nothing but a pyrotechnical display
of Alexandrian ignorance. The reader will observe further that:

   1. Saul NEVER REFERS TO HIMSELF as "Thy servant" (in relation to
God), anywhere in I Samuel; this IS DAVID'S EXPRESSION.

   2. The corrupt reading is three times as long as the A.V. 1611
reading of the Masoretic text, and therefore should be deleted on the
same grounds by which the ASV (1901) deleted Matthew 23:14!

   3. "Thy people Israel" is not Saul's approach to God in prayer.
This, again, is DAVID'S EXPRESSION. Someone (like Saul) is trying to
make a "David" out of Saul, exactly like someone tried to make a "Paul"
out of Origen, or Augustine, or John Calvin (1509-1564).

   The emendation to Genesis 4:8 is ridiculous. The Hebrew (as the A.V.
1611) told you it was "in the field" anyway, in verse 8. Since Origen
and Eusebius (and other writers of the "LXX") were dying to know WHAT
Cain said to Abel, in verse 8 they invented a quotation that would fit
the rest of the verse, "And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go
into the field." The EARLIEST authorities for this reading are Origen
(230 A.D.) and Eusebius (330 A.D.) (See the International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 2313.) It is not a reproduction of the
"original," nor is it any "LXX" from 250 B.C., nor anything like it. It
is the reading of the Pope's Vaticaus (370 A.D.), written 30-50 years
after the Council of Nicaea.

   The only evidence that there WAS A GREEK TRANSLATION OF ANY OLD
TESTAMENT BEFORE 350 A.D. lies in the "Hexapla" (see the next chapter).
None of the Hexapla was written BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. The true researcher, who is seeking for the truth where it
deals with the preservation of the true Bible text, is met on every
hand with this gossamer fabrication of a Greek Bible that never
existed. It hangs like a spider web over the heads of the Greek
scholars in any century, and when they try to define and locate it, it
withdraws. In spite of the accumulated works of the greatest
authorities on the "LXX" who ever lived, there is no evidence that ANY
SUCH WORK EXISTED BEFORE, OR DURING, THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF JESUS
CHRIST.

   The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible anyone ever found
was the Ryland Papyrus (no. 458), which had a few portions of
Deuteronomy 23--28 on it. And even this piece of papyrus was dated 150
B.C., FIFTY TO ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER than the writing of the
so-called "Septuagint." What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri"
are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
These fragments are as follows:

   1. Pieces on Genesis, 200-400 A.D. (Berlin Genesis {1}, Amherst {2},
British Museium {3}, and Oxyrhyncus {4}).

   2. A Bodleian papyrus leaf {5} containing part of Song of Solomon,
written between 600-750 A.D.

   3. An Amherst papyrus {6} containing part of Job 1 and 2, written
between 600-700 A.D.

   4. An Amherst papyrus {7} containing parts of Psalm 5, written
between 400-550 A.D.

   5. Fragmenta Londinensia {8}, in British Museum, containing parts of
Psalm 10,18,20-34, written between 600- 750 A.D.

   6. British Museum "230" {9}, containing Psalm 12:7-- 15:4, written
betwen 220-300 A.D.

   7. A Berlin papyrus {10}, containing Psalm 40:26-- 41:4, written
between 250-400 A.D.

   8. Oxyrhyncus papyrus "845" {11} containing parts of Psalm 68,70,
written between 300-500 A.D.

   9. Amherst papyrus {12} has part of Psalm 101,118,135,138,139, and
140, written between 600-700 A.D.

   10. Leipzig papyrus {13} which has part of the Psalms, written
around 800 A.D.

   11. Heidelberg Codex {14} containing Zechariah 4:6-- Malachi 4:5,
written around 600-700 A.D.

   12. Oxyrhyncus "846" {15}, contains part of Amos 2, and was written
between 500-600 A.D.

   13. A Rainer papyrus {16}, containing Isaiah 38, in part; written
between 200-300 A.D.

   14. A Bodleian papyrus {17}, containing part of Ezekiel 5--6,
written between 200-300 A.D. 15. The Rylands papyri: a. Deuteronomy 2,3
{18}, written between 1300-1400 A.D. b. Job 1,5,6 {19}, written between
550-700 A.D. c. Psalm 90 {20}, written between 400-600 A.D.

   16. The Oxyrhyncus volumes have parts of: a. Exodus 21,22,40
{21,22}, written between 200-300 A.D. b. Genesis 16 {23}, written
between 200-300 A.D. c. Genesis 31 {24}, written between 300-400 A.D.

   It does not take a man with a Master's degree to see that what the
Select Group calls "Seputagint Papyrus" is a collection of fragments
written 200-800 years too late to be connected with anything that would
resemble a "Septuagint." People who believe that there was a Septuagint
before the time of Christ, are living in a dream world. The Hebrew
believders (from 4 B.C. to the conversion of Paul) had a complete and
authoritative Hebrew Bible which God gave to the Hebrews (Rom. 3:1-4)
for them to use. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc., wrote a Greek
Testament for Christian believers which they were to use. Since Gentile
believers wind up outnumbering Hebrew believers better than 10,000 to
one in the next 19 centuries, they are given a GENTILE Bible. The "LXX"
(or "Septuagint") was plainly an attempt by the individuals referred to
in Romans 11:20,25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to REPLACE THE INSPIRED "ORACLES
OF GOD" WITH THE CONJECTURES OF ALEXANDRIAN GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

   There may show up, from time to time, scraps of paper which will
have on them portions of Old Testament passages, written before 30
A.D., but to use ONE (Rylands, 458; about whose origination there is
still a question) as a basis for saying that Luke (Acts 15:12-18) is
quoting a Greek Bible WHILE RECORDING WHAT JAMES SAYS, is just a little
too much for common, ordinary, HONEST people.

   Whenever a fragment of the O.T. Greek is found, it is classified,
immediately, by the Scholar's Union as "LXX."(9) That is, IT IS TAKEN
FOR GRANTED that a Greek Old Testament was translated by 70 Jews BEFORE
THE TIME OF CHRIST. Now go back to the first two paragraphs of this
chapter and read them again--70 is LXX, 72 is NOT "LXX." This jugging
is exactly like the one where the student is told, "The originals
say...," "the original reads...," "the original has a different
wording," etc., until he has lost his faith in the A.V. 1611. THEN HE
FINDS OUT THERE ARE NO "ORIGINALS"! These two discoveries leave the
ministerial student where Altizer found himself--no revelation, no
authority, no call to the ministry, and nothing to minister.

   At the very outset, then, the young man who is called to preach
should adjust himself to the style of his professors, and realize that
the foundation upon which they have replaced the A.V. 1611 New
Testament with such counterfeits as the RV, ASV, and RSV, is a corrupt
foundation itself. At the date of this writing, the "manuscript
evidence" for a Greek translation of the O.T. (before the time of
Christ) is ONE PIECE OF PAPYRUS WITH PART OF 5 CHAPTERS OF DEUTERONOMY
ON IT.

   These odds are one out of twenty-four. But this does not tell the
whole story, for recently (in addition to the papyri finds of Grenfell,
Petrie, and Hunt)(20) other papyrus fragments have been discovered
which the Scholar's Union immediately labeled "LXX."

   These are:

   1. Portions of Numbers and Deuteronomy, written in 150 A.D.

   2. Portions of Isaiah, written in 230 A.D.

   3. Portions of Genesis 8,24,25, 30--47, written 350 A.D.

   4. Portions of Genesis 9:1--44:22, written 350 A.D.

   5. Papyrus 911, containing Genesis 1--35, written around 390 A.D.

   It does not take a high school graduate to see that this collection
of Chester Beatty papyri proves nothing except that somebody, LONG
AFTER THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS COMPLETED, tried to translate the Hebrew
into Greek.(21) Our odds, now, are one out of twenty-nine.

   But if a thousand pieces of papyrus were recovered with Old
Testament Greek on them, written before 100 B.C., nothing could bolster
the sagging testimony of the LXX, for the real proof that it is a fraud
can be found in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts already discovered.

   Here is the classic example of fraud in the Biblical realm.

   "Momma's little helpers"--the Greek faculty at Alexandria (100-300
A.D.)--have inserted the "75" of Acts 7:14 back into Genesis 46:26,27,
and then, REALIZING THAT THE NUMBERS WOULD NOT ADD UP (!), THEY ADDED
NINE FICTITIOUS NAMES TO GENESIS 46:20 TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE!

   It would be hard to believe that men of the caliber of Dr. A.T.
Robertson, J.G. Machen, Benjamin Warfield, and Kenneth Wuest could
swallow such a story as the one that now is postulated by the Scholar's
Union--Origen to English, inclusive.

   The story you are to believe is that Stephen, IN THE MIDDLE OF A
SPIRIT-FILLED ADDRESS to the enemies of Christ, SPEAKING AS A HEBREW TO
HEBREWS IN THE SANHEDRIN, quoted from a Greek manuscript of Genesis
(which only survives 200 years after Stephen's death!) IN WHICH 9 NAMES
WERE ADDED IN VIOLATION OF THE HEBREW LAWS CONCERNING BIBLE TRANSLATING
(Prov. 30:6).

   You are expected to believe this in the face of the evidence and the
evidence is that nothing like "75" is found in Genesis 46:26,27,
anywhere, before 200 YEARS AFTER Stephen had gone home to glory.

   If you believe it, you are a fool.

   Another classic example of Alexandrian buffoonery is found in
Genesis 47:31. To justify the use of Images as "aids to worship," the
North African faculty transposed Hebrews 11:21 into Genesis 47:31, to
make the faculty members of Bob Jones and Tennessee Temple think that
the author of Hebrews was "using the Septuagint." But, horrors! The
corruptible pen of the corrupt scribe who made the corruption, failed
to notice that the context of Hebrews 11:21 WAS NOT THAT OF GENESIS 47!!

   The context of Hebrews 11:21, "When he was a dying, blessed both the
sons of Joseph," is Genesis 48:12!

   The reader can see, immediately, that the writer of the
Post-Apostolic "LXX" has forced the writer of Hebrews into a
contradiction which he never made when he penned the words under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But the myth of the "LXX" is so strong
that this blatant contradiction escaped the notice of Calvin, Keil,
Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Murphy, Rosenmuller, Kennicott, De Rossi,
DeWette, Berkhof, Machen, Wuest, Weiss, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Nestle,
Deismann, Swete, Westcott and Hort, and Gesenius! (There is apparently
something about "higher education" EVEN IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN
SCHOOLS, which prevents a man from believing the Bible, whether that
man be an Evangelical, an Orthodox, a Dead Orthodox, a Papist, a Jew,
an Agnostic Atheist, Conservative, Neo-orthodox, or Fundamentalist!)
99.99% of these superstitious people believe, to this day, that the
writer of Hebrews 11:21 didn't have any more sense than to copy a Greek
reading of Genesis 47:31, WHICH IS IN THE WRONG PLACE!

   These are only one or two examples of the approach of "modern
scholarship" to finding the "original text." They do demonstrate,
however, an appalling lack of common sense, an amazing amount of
cedulity, and a preposterous faith in Greek scholarship to sell itself
to Christians like Peter, James, John, and Andrew (commercial
fishermen!!).

   The first lessons which the true Bible believing Christian should
learn about Manuscript Evidence are:

   1. There is no manuscript evidence that any New Testament Christian
wasted five minutes with a Greek O.T. that came out of Alexandria--or
anywhere else.

   2. There is no evidence at all to support the untenable theory that
any group of scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek between
250-150 B.C.

   3. What is referred to as the "LXX" (or Septuagint) is (90% of the
time) the corrupt Vatican MS (350 A.D.), and Sinaiticus MS (350 A.D.)
which contain "Bel and the Dragon," "Tobit," "Judith," etc. These were
written by Eusebius or Pamphilus(22) (or someone just as fouled up as
they were!) They survive in excellent condition today because all Bible
believing Christians knew that they were about as Biblical as Mickey
Mouse.(23) This "LXX" was written more than 250 years after the
completion of the New Testament canon and it is the only "LXX" anyone
knows anything about.

   4. In view of the fact that the "Letter to Aristeas" is a spurious
fabrication (probably from the pen of Philo, himself), in view of the
fact that the LXX contradicts the Hebrew Old Testament text, in view of
the fact that the Greeks "seek wisdom" and resented the oracles of God
being given to Israel, in view of the fact that the "Wisdom seekers"
(Gen. 3:1-6) are still with us today and inherit the sins of their
fathers (Matt. 23:30,31), the first rule in the study of Manuscript
Evidence is this--WHERE THE SO-CALLED "LXX" CONTRADICTS THE READINGS OF
THE A.V. 1611 OLD TESTAMENT, THROW IT IN THE WASTE BASKET.

   The serious student of scripture--not Greek mythology--will observe
that the order of the books in the Old Testament (in the A.V. 1611) has
NOT been laid out with the "Septuagint" in mind, although one can find
similarities. The truth of the matter is, the unconverted Jew has been
left with a revelation from God in his Hebrew Bible, which warns him
(in the last verse of the last chapter of the last book-- II Chronicles
36:23) to GET UP AND GO BACK TO JERUSALEM. This is God's message for
Israel in the end time. The order of the books in the A.V. 1611 doesn't
follow the order of the mythological Septuagint at all, for the copies
of the "Septuagint" which scholars quote, CONTAIN THE APOCRYPHA AS PART
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT!"(24) Neither Luther's Bible (1532-1545) nor the
Authorized Bible (1611) ever included the Apocrypha as part of the
inspired Oracles of God.(25) Martin Luther and Dr. Reynolds (1611) had
more sense than Westcott and Hort who lived 240-320 years AFTER
them.(26)

   NOTES

   1. Kahle, in particular, in Reumann, op. cit., p. 16. See "The Cairo
Geniza," p. 251, cited by F.F. Bruce, "The Books and the Parchments,"
p. 154.

   2. See this forgery made by Philo in "The Lost Books of the Bible"
(World Publishing Co., 1926), pp. 141-176.

   3. See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 2723,
Eerdmans, 1939.

   4. See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Ibid., p. 2723.

   5. Reumann, "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" (Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965), p. 16.

   6. See note No. 2, above.

   7. All the basic problems of Rationalism, Empiricism, Stoicism,
Pragmatism, Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Aristotelianism, Fascism,
Communism, Pantheism, Hedonism, Skepticism, Realism, Naturalism, Deism,
Theism, Existentialism, Epicureanism, Egotism, Idealism, and Socratic
"theogonies," were discussed and solved in the Wisdom Books (Job--Song
of Solomon), 500 years before Alexander the Great's grandfather was
born. Why would a Jewish scribe pay any attention to "Philosophy"?

   8. ISBE (Eerdmans, 1939), Ibid., p. 3061.

   9. See the facts in Chapter Four.

   10. All of the translators of the "LXX" publish a New Testament WITH
IT. "Aleph," A, C, B, and D all contain parts of BOTH TESTAMENTS.

   11. ISBE, Ibid., p. 2725.

   12. W & H, "N.T. in Greek" (Vol. 2), pp. 134, 135. Streeter, "The
Four Gospels," p. 122. Kenyon, "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament" (MacMillan, 1912), p. 324,325.

   13. Read the material in 11, and 12, above, and note the pathetic
language of each writer as he admits that "no one knows."

   14. The delusion is so strong that most "scholars" will repeat that
the LXX was "the Christian's Bible," a dozen times in as many pages.
See Introduction to "The Apocrypha," by Robert H. Pfeiffer (Eyre and
Spottiswoode Limited, England). "The Christian's" is the catch.
Scholars presume that men like Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine were
"Christians." See F.F. Bruce, Ibid., pp. 150,151.

   15. ISBE, Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 2774, 2775.

   16. See Swete's "Introduction," ISBE, Ibid.

   17. Following the Liberal approach, it is assumed that if a writer
quotes the Old Testament, he must be COPYING A MANUSCRIPT that has been
written. THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL, see for examples Jude 9, 14, and
Acts 20:35.

   18. That is, the scholars always give the benefit of the doubt to
manuscripts WHICH CONTRADICT THE REFORMATION BIBLES, and agree with the
Catholic theology. See Miller, Ibid., p. 241, for the Book of
Revelation in Latin manuscripts, which ante-date Vaticanus by 200 years.

   19. See Gleason Archer, op. cit., p. 39, where the author calls the
FIFTH column of the Hexapla THE ORIGINAL SEPTUAGINT! (This is
habitual.) See Schaff do the same thing--note 73 in Chapter Five. See
Charles Gulston DO THE SAME THING in, "No Greater Heritage" (Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960), on p. 21. The student who studies
Textual Criticism, is led to believe that the Septuagint was written
150-250 B.C., AND WAS PRESERVED BY ORIGEN IN THE HEXAPLA. This
brain-washing is DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL and HABITUAL.

   20. ISBE, Vol. IV, pp. 2240-2242.

   21. The recently discovered fragments 1 QIs-a, 1 QIs-b, 4 Q, and 1
QpHb (parts of Isaiah, Habakkuk, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, I Samuel, and
Exodus) add no evidence at all to a Pre-Christian Greek O.T., for THEY
ARE ALL WRITTEN IN HEBREW. See Gleason Archer, Ibid. (Moody Press,
1964).

   22. Archer, Ibid., pp. 39,40.

   23. Observe how the 20th century Bible believer will not buy as many
copies of an ASV, or an RSV, as the A.V. 1611. The Revision committees
attribute this to "tradition" and "ignorance."

   24. Cyril of Jerusalem (300 A.D.) cites the O.T. books as not having
ANY Apocrypha. Josephus (100) lists the books found in the A.V. 1611 as
the proper Old Testament canon (H.S. Miller, Ibid., pp. 83-116).
Symmachus and Aquilla (128, 200 A.D.), did not include the Apocrypha.
All Orthodox Jews state that the A.V. 1611 canon is the correct canon.
F.F. Bruce, Ibid., p. 228.

   25. Neither Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Tavener, Calvin, nor the A.V.
translators recognized them as inspired, and Philo (20-50 B.C.)
mentions hundreds of Old Testament quotations without alluding to them
once. (F.S. Miller, op. cit., pp. 122-142.) They were added to Jerome's
work against his better judgment (Ibid.), pp. 120-122, and Martin
Luther did not translate all of the Apocrypha himself. See Reumann,
"The Romans of Bible Scripts and Schoalrs" (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965), pp. 68, 78. In the first quarter of the
second century, before the corrupting influence of the Hexapla had
spread, Aristides testifies that the real Christians used versions
which omitted the Apocrypha, and which were NOT used by the "Church
Fathers." See Westcott, "A General Survey of the History of the Canon
of the New Testament" (MacMillan, London, 1896), pp. 86, 87.

   26. Reumann, Ibid., pp. 115, 121. The same author identifies Luther
with the Antiochan school, of the Syrian- Byzantine manuscripts--which
is correct--and then puts him in with AUGUSTINE AND PHILO as a scholar!
(p. 87). This is the "Pauline Obsession" mentioned in note No. 96,
Chapter Six.
