Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part

Contra Stavrinides
by Frank Nelte

PART IX: THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION (LXX)

In his presentation Dr. Stavrinides relies heavily on the Septuagint (i.e. LXX) version of the Old Testament. For example, he said:

As becomes evident from the above statements, Dr. Stavrinides views the LXX Old Testament as inspired, since "all four gospel writers quote from the LXX", rather than from the Hebrew. He claims this translation was made around 285 B.C. .

Let's examine the facts regarding the LXX:

  1. Here are some quotations from the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 1958 Edition, Volume 20, Article "SEPTUAGINT, THE", pages 335 - 336.
    "Its (i.e. the LXX) critical value is unfortunately greatly impaired by THE CORRUPT STATE OF ITS OWN TEXT." (emphasis is mine)
    "The Hebrew text from which the LXX translators worked was often divergent from that represented by the Massoretic text, but we need not assume that in cases of difference the Greek is to be preferred. THE LXX TRANSLATORS MADE SOME PALPABLE MISTAKES; THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW WAS OFTEN INADEQUATE; THEY OCCASIONALLY INTERPRETED AS WELL AS TRANSLATED, AND THEY SOMETIMES INTRODUCED LOCAL COLOUR." (emphasis is mine)

    These quotations show that the LXX is totally corrupt and unreliable!

  2. Here are some more facts from the Britannica article:
    1. The LXX does not follow the Hebrew tripartite division but changes the order of the books to the categories of Law, History, Poetry ("poetry" is what we are being told so much about these days!) and Prophecy.
    2. he chief uncial Mss (i.e. written on parchment in semi-capital style letter, which were used for the N.T. till about 800 A.D. and of which about 300 exist today) are "A" and "B", both of Egyptian origin and yet they "vary considerably" from each other. "A" is Codex Alexandrinus and "B" is Codex Vaticanus. ("A" and "B" both contain most of the O.T. and N.T. and their O.T. text is the LXX text.)
    3. The original LXX text of the Book of Job was very much shorter than the Hebrew text ... the translator left large portions out!
    4. In the books of Esther and Daniel the LXX has NUMEROUS ADDITIONS, which are not found in the Hebrew text. Who authorised these additions?
    5. The LXX frequently changes the order of the text, especially in Jeremiah chapters 25 - 51. That sounds just like Moffatt's English translation, doesn't it?
    6. The two chief LXX mss of the book of Judges vary very much from each other. Which one is to be trusted?
    7. There is no authentic LXX version available today ... ANYWHERE! That is, if there ever was such a thing as an "authentic" version.
    8. Today's LXX actually has Theodotion's translation of the book of Daniel in it. Why did the original translation of the book of Daniel have to be dropped?
    9. The LXX text of Jeremiah very clearly has two different authors. The first author translated chapters 1 - 28; the rest was done by a different person.
    10. The LXX text preserves several non-canonical books. On what authority are such books included with the Word of God?

    All these facts, which can be verified in the Britannica, again make the point that there is nothing inspired about the LXX translation.

  3. THE ONLY EVIDENCE that such a "Septuagint" translation was ever made is based on a pseudepigraphical document entitled "LETTER OF ARISTEAS TO PHILOCRATES". "Pseudepigraphical" means: ascribing false names of authors to works! Scholars today very readily recognize that this letter was not written by anyone named "ARISTEAS" at all! This forgery was made for the express purpose of deceiving people about the exact origin of the Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.

    THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND THAT SUCH AN LXX TRANS-LATION WAS EVER MADE!

    Think about this for a moment! Why would God inspire the gospel writers to quote from a translation whose only claim to existence rested on a forged letter, rather than quoting from the Hebrew text God had inspired in the first place?

  4. The exact date of this "Letter of Aristeas" stands in question. The "earliest possible date" has been placed at about 150 B.C. ... or 130 years AFTER the LXX was supposedly made! However, some scholars feel, not without reason, that the true author was PHILO, a Jew who was born in Alexandria about 20 B.C. and who died around 50 A.D. If Philo was the author, then this "Letter of Aristeas" would in fact have an A.D. date.

    Philo, though ethnically a Jew, was philosophically a Greek. He was a prolific author. He strongly believed in an allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. His aim was to prove that the philosophy of the Greeks had in fact been anticipated by the Jews. This way he could justify the Jews embracing Hellenistic customs and ideas. Philo was also heavily influenced by a belief in mysticism. He tried very hard to synthesize the Hellenistic and the Hebrew traditions. And Philo certainly had a motive for WANTING to see the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures find acceptance.

    Whether Philo was the author of "Aristeas" or not does not affect the conclusion that this letter has been proved to be a forgery!

  5. Anyway, "Aristeas" tells of the fanciful plan that Ptolemy II (called Philadelphus) wished to have a translation of the Jewish law for his library in Alexandria. That was around 280 B.C. ... or about 130 years before the "earliest possible date" for "Aristeas". So at Ptolemy's request (so "Aristeas" claims) the High Priest at Jerusalem sent 72 men (Note!), 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, to Egypt with a scroll of the Law.

    Supposedly in 72 days (Note!) they translated one section each from this scroll and afterwards decided on the wording together. Supposedly they translated the Pentateuch this way, though later writers exaggerated this fabled origin to refer to the whole Old Testament.

    The problem is that the originally forged "Letter of Aristeas" doesn't exist any more ... and so different writers, CLAIMING to quote from this letter, have recorded different versions of this story. And so "the only REAL evidence" for the existence of an LXX doesn't exist!

  6. The problems with this forged letter should be readily apparent:
    1. Around 300 B.C. there simply were no "12 TRIBES" around the area of Jerusalem.
    2. Therefore there could not have been any "72 scholars" from "the 12 tribes".
    3. Even IF there had been 12 tribes in the area of Jerusalem, there still would not have been "6 scholars from each tribe". The preservation of the scriptures was the responsibility of the Levites and under no circumstances would a Levitical High Priest have entrusted the translation of the scriptures to any of the other 11 tribes! For that matter, it is very doubtful that any High Priest would have approved of the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek or any other language.
    4. This whole fabricated scenario reveals the true author's hellenistic bias ... an attempt to bestow official recognition and approval from the High Priest to some Greek translations of the O.T. scriptures that were floating around in Alexandria at that time. The author was clearly a Jew. Modern scholarship makes clear that the author of "Aristeas" was lying!
  7. Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the O.T. written before the time of Christ? Yes, there is ONE and one only ... it is a minute scrap dated at 150 B.C. . That is about 130 years after the supposed LXX translation was made and therefore obviously not the work of the "72 scholars".

    It is the Rylands Papyrus #458 and it is in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, U.K. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23 to 28 ... no more! That is hardly convincing evidence that the whole Pentateuch had been translated 130 years earlier.

  8. By the way, if this translation was made by "72" scholars in "72" days, why is it not called "LXXII"? Why is it called "LXX"? The answer seems to be that while "12" is a good number for anyone who wants to claim inspiration where the number of tribes is concerned (i.e. it implies that ALL 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL endorsed this translation), "70" is the number to symbolize perfection (i.e. it implies this is a PERFECT translation into Greek). Not exactly very honest, is it?

    "LXX" is clearly a mythical name, intended to impress people!

  9. When challenged to produce HARD EVIDENCE for the existence of such a document as the LXX, scholars can only point to Origen's "HEXAPLA". Today there is no copy of Origen's ORIGINAL Hexapla in existence ... other authors refer to it.

    Origen wrote his "Hexapla" around 220 A.D. ... or about 500 years after the LXX was supposedly translated! That is a long time ... longer than from the time of the 1611 KJV translation to our time today.

    Origen was born around 185 A.D. in Alexandria and he became one of the foremost "THEOLOGIANS" of the early Catholic Church. When one examines his works entitled "DE PRINCIPIIS" and "CONTRA CELSUM", then it quickly becomes evident that he tried very hard to reconcile GREEK philosophy with Christian theology ... very much like what Philo had tried to do with the Hebrew scriptures.

    By 220 A.D. there were a number of rather divergent Greek MSS of the Hebrew scriptures around, especially so in Alexandria. Many were extremely poor and slipshod renditions, yet claiming to be the LXX ... making a mockery of the meticulous care the Sopherim had taken in preserving the original text.

    As a Catholic theologian, Origen wanted to reconcile these various translations. As a Greek philosopher, Origen wanted these Greek MSS to reflect Greek thought and to at the same time have official Church recognition. He wanted that official recognition to be bestowed on HIS work.

    So Origen produced his "Hexapla", a 6-column harmony of the Greek texts that he had access to. No copies of that original Hexapla are extant today. Anyway, the texts he had access to were:

    The second column of his Hexapla was supposed to represent the LXX-translation. This was the column that Origen wanted to see receiving official recognition. It is this column that the later Catholic scholar Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate version, viewed as the authoritative standard and which is reflected in his "Vulgate" version. This shows that Origen achieved his goal of having official recognition for his version of the LXX.

  10. Now let's look at the second column of Origen's Hexapla, which Origen wanted to present as the official copy of the LXX. As I will show, in reality this presents nothing more than ORIGEN'S OWN ATTEMPT AT PRODUCING A GREEK VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR WHICH HE WANTED OFFICIAL CHURCH RECOGNITION!

    Note the following facts:

    1. Origen, writing about 220 A.D. claimed to faithfully record the translation which Dr. Stavrinides told us was made "around 285 B.C.", or 500 years before his own time. In those 500 years the Greek language had changed.

      Let's try to understand this in our context of the English language. When the 1611 KJV translators used the word "conversation" they meant: conduct and behaviour. We today have no difficulty recognizing the word "conversation", but to us it means: talking, speech.

      Thus if someone today wanted to forge a document that was supposedly written in 1611 A.D. and in it he used the word "conversation" to mean "speech" because he was unaware of the fact that in 1611 this word had a different meaning ... then scholars of the English language would have no difficulty in seeing that this was a forgery.

      There are similar differences between the classical Greek idiom, which was still in use in 285 B.C., and the Greek of the New Testament and of Origen's time. Scholars can recognize when a word is used with a meaning ahead of its historic place in the language.

    2. The Greek employed in Origen's LXX is NOT the classical idiom which was still in vogue in 280 B.C. . Instead, Origen's LXX uses the "Koine" Greek of the New Testament ... that's like using the word "conversation" to mean speech, when it really should be used to mean conduct and behaviour. This is a clear and irrefutable give-away that Origen's LXX did not originate anywhere near 280 B.C.. And so many scholars, who refuse to acknowledge this fraud, prefer to say things like ...
      "the Greek idiom of the LXX 'ANTICIPATED' that of the New Testament."

      What do you mean ... "anticipated"? That sounds just like Philo who felt that the Jews had "anticipated" the philosophy of the Greeks. Look, the man, whose word we are supposed to accept as truth when he says that the second column in his Hexapla represents the official LXX, lived in 220 A.D. and he wrote the LXX in the language of his own time. The only LXX that exists today goes back to Origen. There is no other LXX version apart from Origen!

    3. Origen's second column, supposedly the official text of the LXX, also contains such spurious books as:
      • "Bel and the Dragon",
      • "Judith",
      • "Tobit", etc.

      All of these spurious books were written AFTER 250 B.C., not before! If this second column is supposed to be the work of the original LXX translators, it would mean that those astute 72 scholars added the apocryphal books to their work BEFORE these apocryphal books were even written! That would be quite a feat, wouldn't it?!

      Again, column two CANNOT BE "THE ORIGINAL LXX". Origen had no way of knowing the exact dates of origin for the various apocryphal books. So he included them, thinking no one would catch him out. But modern research into this HAS caught him out!

      Also, the inclusion of the apocryphal books makes very clear that no Levitical High Priest in Jerusalem would ever have sent scrolls of these apocryphal books to Egypt to have them translated into Greek. The fraud that is the LXX should be clear for all to see.

    4. Origen is the chief architect of the Catholic Church's teaching about the "HYPOSTASIS" of God. We'll see more details about that in the next section, PART X. But one point is of importance when we are discussing the LXX Origen produced:

      Origen wanted to make sure that his "Hypostasis"-theory about the nature of God would be accepted as biblical. And so he made very sure that it is included in the Old Testament. Dr. Stavrinides told us that the word is used in the LXX.

      What he did not tell us is that in the LXX Origen TRANSLATED FIFTEEN DIFFERENT HEBREW WORDS WITH THE ONE GREEK WORD "HYPOSTASIS"! That was Origen's way of making sure that the idea of "hypostasis" would become well entrenched in the Old Testament!

      Think about this for a moment! The architect of the Catholic teaching about the "hypostasis" of God is also the same man to whom can be traced the only extant version of the Greek LXX translation. Origen went ahead and liberally scattered the Greek word "hypostasis" throughout the O.T. ... by rendering FIFTEEN DIFFERENT HEBREW WORDS into the Greek word "hypostasis". Does Hebrew REALLY have "15 different ways" of saying "hypostasis"???

      This all by itself reveals the fraud that Origen tried to pass off as a version produced 500 years before his own time!

      In the New Testament the word "hypostasis" is used exactly FIVE times in two epistles, both written by Paul. But in the LXX of the Old Testament it is so common that it represents 15 different Hebrew words. The fraud is obvious to anyone whose mind is open to the truth.

  11. Let's examine some Greek words that are used in the New Testament and which also appear in the LXX ... but which were not really used in the classical Greek of 280 B.C. ... like "conversation" meaning "speech" in the New Testament, in Origen's time and also in the LXX, but in 280 B.C., when the LXX was supposedly translated, still meaning "conduct, behaviour".

    Technically, scholars will refer to such words as " LATE words", meaning they weren't part of classical Greek. It is the appear-ance of these words in Origen's LXX text that prompts some scholars to make statements like: "the Greek idiom of the LXX ANTICIPATED that of the N.T.".

    Here are some examples:

    1. "MEGALOSUNE": this is a late word from "MEGAS" and is used in the N.T. in Hebrews 1:3 in the expression "of the Majesty on high" (Greek is "tês megalosunês en hupsêlois"). It is also used in Hebrews 8:1, etc.. It means "majesty". It is not found in Greek before Christ except in two places:
      • the Letter of Aristeas (there we have it again, the forgery); and in
      • the LXX (e.g. Deut. 32:3; 2Samuel 7:23; etc.). THIS WORD WAS NOT USED IN THE GREEK OF 280 B.C.!
    2. "AKATASTATOS": this means "unstable" and is used in James 1:8. This is a LATE DOUBLE COMPOUND from "alpha privative" + "katastatos", which comes from "kathistêmi". The LXX uses this word in Isaiah 54:11. THIS WORD WAS ALSO NOT USED IN THE GREEK OF 280 B.C.!
    3. "EMPAIGMOS" is another LATE word found in the LXX. It means "mocking" and is used in Hebrews 11:36 in the expression "empaigmôn kai mastigôn" (i.e. "mockings and scourgings"). It comes from the word "empaizô", which is used in Matt. 28:19.
    4. "AKROGôNIAIOS" is a compound word that occurs only in the N.T. and in the LXX. It is used in Eph. 2:20 in the expression "ontôs akrogônianiou autou Christou Iêsou" (i.e. "Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone"). It is also used in IPeter 2:6. In the LXX Origen first used it in Isaiah 28:16. THIS WORD WAS ALSO NOT USED IN THE GREEK OF 280 B.C.!
    5. "Parepidêmois", meaning "strangers", is used in IPeter 1:1. It is a LATE double compound adjective found twice in the LXX (e.g. Gen. 23:4), but not in classical Greek.
    6. "Sunantilambanomai" is a LATE and striking double compound, used in Rom. 8:26 in the expression "sunantilambanetai têi astheneiâi hemon" (i.e. "helps our infirmities"). It is found in the LXX, in Josephus (who wrote in the first century A.D.) and in Diodorus (who wrote up to 20 B.C.). But it wasn't used before Diodorus.
    7. "Sunêgerthête" is used in Col. 2:12 in the expression "en hôi kai sunêgerthête" (i.e. "wherein also you are risen with him") and it is the first aorist passive indicative of "sunegeirô". This is a LATE and rare verb used in the LXX and otherwise by Plutarch (he lived from 46 - 120 A.D.). Plutarch used it with the meaning of "waking up together".
    8. "Moichalis", meaning an adulteress, is used in Romans 7:3. It is another LATE word, found in the LXX and in Plutarch's writings.
    9. "Têi mataiotêti", used in Romans 8:20 (i.e. "subject to vanity"),in the dative case, is a rare and LATE word from "mataios" meaning "empty, vain"; but it is common in the LXX.
    10. "Edoliousan" ("they have used deceit" in Rom. 3:13) is the imperfect active of "dolioô", which comes from the common adjective "dolios" meaning: "deceitful". This word is only used here in the N.T. ... and also in the LXX.

      There are many, many more examples of words like these, which are not really found in the Greek of 200 B.C. or earlier; yet they are used in the LXX, which supposedly reflects the Greek of 280 B.C..

      No wonder scholars have to say things like "the Greek idiom of the LXX anticipated that of the N.T.".

  12. Dr. Stavrinides claims that the New Testament writers quoted from the LXX rather than from the Hebrew text. That is not really true.

    When God inspired an Old Testament passage to be quoted in the New Testament, then God did not always inspire the Greek text to have the identical meaning to the original Hebrew text. At times the original text has been adapted, under inspiration, to the N.T. conditions.

    Note this example in the New Testament where a Hebrew and a Greek word actually have somewhat different meanings.

    And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] ABADDON, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name APOLLYON. (Revelation 9:11)

    This scripture is talking about Satan. In the Greek he is called "Apollyon", which means "destroyer". In the Hebrew he is called "Abaddon". This word does not mean destroyer, though it is translated as such by the translators. It comes from the verb "abad" which is used in Ezekiel 28:16. Notice ...

    By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will DESTROY thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezekiel 28:16)

    The Hebrew "abad" is a primary root that literally means: "to wander away, to lose oneself", therefore, BY IMPLICATION "to perish, or be destroyed". This meaning of "to wander away" is intended in Ezekiel 28:16 ... that's what will happen to Satan, rather than "destruction", which we tend to think of as "annihi-lation". So the words "Apollyon" in Greek and "Abaddon" in Hebrew do overlap, but they also each have meanings that ADD to the other word.

    The point is: sometimes God has chosen not to repeat an O.T. quote identically in the N.T., but to ADD to the meaning already provided in the O.T..

    Let's get back to Origen.

    When Origen, in the process of putting together his version of the LXX, came to an O.T. passage that he knew is quoted in the N.T., he simply wrote the Greek text from the New Testament into the Greek LXX. In plain English, he made the Greek version of the O.T. quote the Greek of the N.T. verbatim ... to give greater credibility to his work. That way it would look as if the New Testament writers were quoting from his LXX text, that HIS LXX text was therefore "the originally inspired translation" by the 70 (really supposedly 72, but never mind ...) scholars from all 12 tribes of Israel.

    However, in this process Origen also made some slip-ups. Notice an example:

    When you compare these two passages, then you see that they are basically the same ... except that in Hebrews 1:10 Paul added the word "Lord" to this quotation. The Greek for "Lord" is "Kurie".

    There is nothing unusual in the fact that Paul added this form of address to his quotation.

    However ...

    Origen in his zeal to copy the Greek New Testament quotation of the O.T. back into his version of the LXX also copied the word "Lord" into Psalm 102:26-28.

    Now there is no way that those fictitious 72 scholars could have faithfully translated Psalm 102 into Greek and somehow "known" that they should ADD the word "Lord" to these verses! What Psalm 102 in the LXX version shows very plainly is that the writer (i.e. Origen!) simply COPIED the text from Hebrews 1:10-12 back into his version of the LXX (the only version of the LXX in existence today!) into Psalm 102.

    THE FORGERY STANDS EXPOSED!

    Let's look at one more example, found in Hebrews 1:6.

    And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)

    This is NOT a direct quote from any passage in the O.T., though it is, IN SUBSTANCE, found in Psalm 97:7, which reads:

    Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all [ye] gods. (Psalms 97:7)

    The Hebrew word for "gods" in this verse is "ELOHIM". Now let's examine Psalm 97 more closely and understand what Paul was doing in Hebrews 1:6.

    The subject of Psalm 97 is stated in verse 1:

    The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad [thereof]. (Psalms 97:1)

    It is Christ RULING ON EARTH, i.e. after His second coming.

    Christ's second coming is described in some detail in verses 2-5:

    Clouds and darkness [are] round about him: righteousness and judgment [are] the habitation of his throne. 3 A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. 4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. 5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. (Psalms 97:2-5)

    These are some of the events surrounding the second coming.

    Verse 6 tells us that all those who have lived through those end-time events and are still physical, mortal human beings will see the glory of Christ's second coming.

    The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. (Psalms 97:6)

    Verse 7 tells us two things:

    There is nothing unusual about those in the first resurrection "worshipping" Jesus Christ. We will worship God the Father and Jesus Christ for all future eternity! Even when there are only spirit beings around, God the Father and Jesus Christ will both have THRONES in the New Jerusalem!

    And there shall be no more curse: but THE THRONE OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: (Revelation 22:3)

    And they will be worshipped by all of the rest of their Family! They, together, worked out this plan to create others like themselves and to share their existence with us ... and we will for all future eternity express our gratitude and appreciation for what both, God the Father and Jesus Christ, have done for us!

    Verse 8 tells of the rejoicing at Christ's second coming.

    Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O LORD. (Psalms 97:8)

    Verse 9 is speaking TO JESUS CHRIST and says:

    For thou, LORD, [art] high above all the earth: THOU ART EXALTED FAR ABOVE ALL GODS. (Psalms 97:9)

    Certainly, God the Father has, without contradiction, exalted Jesus Christ "far above" all those in the first resurrection! It is not a matter of Jesus Christ being exalted above "idols" ... those stupid things don't exist in the first place, except as the figment of someone's imagination! To be exalted "above" some non-existent idol is not really any exaltation at all. Nor is this speaking about Jesus Christ being exalted above some "human judges" (as some would like to see the word "Elohim" translated here). For Jesus Christ, in the glory of His second coming, to be exalted above some dumb, frail, sickly, weak, powerless and helpless "human judges" is not any real exaltation either!

    In these verses Christ's glory and power and might at His second coming, when "the hills melted like wax", is not being compared to either some idol or to some human judges (if there are any left alive at that point in time).

    What Christ is exalted above is EVERY OTHER SPIRIT BEING (obviously apart from the Father!), both the Elohim in the first resurrection, and the angels of God. That is real exaltation for Jesus Christ ... but to be exalted above some fat buddha-idol (or similar caricatures of the image of God) or some human beings (be they judges or kings or business tycoons) is no exaltation for the glorious Jesus Christ!

    Now back to the Apostle Paul and Hebrews 1:6. Paul understood that Psalm 97 makes clear that all those in the first resurrection will worship Jesus Christ.

    Paul then made a deduction! That's right, HE REASONED! And he reasoned correctly! He reasoned that Psalm 97:7 OBVIOUSLY implied that if the "Elohim" in the first resurrection will worship Jesus Christ, THEN all the angels, who are lower, will certainly ALSO worship Jesus Christ. And that was SOUND REASONING! Therefore, since Paul in the context of Hebrews 1 was comparing Christ to angels, he made his statement in verse 6:

    And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)

    Notice that Paul said: "He saith ..." i.e. Paul did not claim that he was giving a direct quote of something that had been "WRITTEN" anywhere in the Old Testament. Paul simply claimed that God had "said" this.

    But what does all this have to do with the LXX, you might be thinking. Well, here's the point:

    Paul was not quoting precisely any specific O.T. scripture and did not claim to be quoting anything that was "written". But Origen, in putting his LXX together, decided that Hebrews 1:6 should be found somewhere in the O.T..

    And so Origen inserted "and let all the angels of God worship him" into his LXX text of the Old Testament! He put this sentence into the text of DEUTERONOMY 32:43. Notice what Deut. 32:43 actually says:

    Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people. (Deuteronomy 32:43)

    In the LXX it says: "... and let all the angels of God worship him", the exact Greek words found in Hebrews 1:6.

    THERE IS NO WAY ANY TRANSLATORS IN 280 B.C. COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT PHRASE FROM THE HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS AVAILABLE TO THEM!

    ONCE AGAIN ORIGEN'S FORGERY STANDS EXPOSED!

  13. One last thing needs to be answered in regard to the LXX. Dr. Stavrinides claims that the early Christian Church read the LXX of the O.T. and not the Hebrew text. Yes, there was a church that "called itself Christian" that is reported as reading this corrupt LXX ... but that does not prove that that was the TRUE Church of God. The FALSE CHURCH got going pretty quickly, remember? So reports about groups calling themselves "Christian", especially in Alexandria, Egypt, who used the LXX are to be treated with great circumspection.

    On page 42 above, under point 2) B) I mentioned that one of the chief MSS with the LXX text is Codex Vaticanus. It was very conveniently discovered in the Vatican Library in 1481 A.D. ... just before the Protestant Reformation really got going. It is in excellent physical condition, being written on fine vellum. But the textual quality is also shockingly poor! Vaticanus leaves out Genesis 1:1 to 46:28; Psalms 106 to 138; Paul's Pastoral Epistles; Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 and the whole Book of Revelation. But it DOES contain the Apocrypha. In the gospels it leaves out 748 whole sentences, 452 clauses and an additional 237 words ... all through sheer carelessness on the part of the scribe! There are even more errors in the Old Testament (which represents the LXX text). Are we really to believe that the true Church of God in the first century A.D. would have used such a corrupt text to base their beliefs on?

    In summary, yes there were Greek translations of the O.T. around in Alexandria. The prologue to Ecclesiasticus, one of the apocryphal books, mentions that by 130 B.C. portions of the third section of the O.T. (the Writings or the Psalms) were available in Greek. The Law and then the Prophets had been translated earlier. Many of these were private ventures and of very poor quality. By 40 A.D. Philo was familiar with all of the O.T. books in Greek, except for Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and Daniel. As likely as not, he was the one to forge "Aristeas" in order to give recognition and approval to these Greek trans-lations.

    The only LXX we have today stands exposed as a corrupt forgery!

Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part