"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 7, Number 7, July 2004
“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.
For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;
Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.
I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.
I will show partiality to no one. Nor will I flatter any man.”
["As I See It" is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God. The editor's perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address. Back issues sent on request. All back issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org
All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but may be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met: 1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution only. Permission to distribute in any other form must be secured in writing beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian print periodicals will generally be given.]
Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, plus 33 other scientists from 10 countries write: "Big Bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors."
Lerner believes the Big Bang theory has predominated in spite of these failings because research grant money is almost completely restricted to projects that set out to prove the Big Bang. Evidence that does not fit the theory such as discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundance and galaxy distribution is ignored or ridiculed. "This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry," warns Lerner. Furthermore, he states the theory "can boast of no quantitative predictions that have since been validated."
--John Mackay at Creation Research
The Septuagint--B.C. or A.D.?
One of the strangest “givens” of the KJV Only movement is the widespread--almost ubiquitous--denial of the existence of the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament (often identified by the short title, “LXX,” the Roman numeral representation of “Seventy,” which is the meaning of “septuagint” in Latin) before the 3rd century A.D, with the accompanying claim that this Greek translation had its origin at the hands of the Alexandria-born church father Origen [b. 185, d. 254 A.D.]. And since Origen had some strange, even heretical theological views, and since his quotations from the NT are regularly Alexandrian or non-textus receptus in form, it is easy and convenient for Peter Ruckman and other “founding fathers” or “leading lights” of the KJVO movement to make him the universal ancient “bogey-man” in all matters relating to the text of the NT, as they have similarly done with Messrs. Westcott and Hort in the modern era.
Typical of this remarkably uninformed opinion is Pastor Kent Brandenburg, who in all seriousness actually affirmed--“All of the speculation about a pre-Christian LXX comes from one letter purported to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285 - 246 BC), in which he relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian to get a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem, who sent seventy-two elders (six from each of the twelve tribes) to Alexandria with an official copy of the Law. Many of the details of the Aristeas letter are exaggerated and even legendary. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 AD. The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible anyone has 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 BC, 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 papyrus, written 200 years after the death of Christ.” (Quoted from, God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved For Us by Kent Brandenburg)
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.
Actually, Ruckman’s view arose either as a misrepresentation or misunderstanding (Ruckman is a master at both) of the writings of Paul Kahle (1875-1964), expert in the text of the OT, who had a distinctive theory regarding the purpose of the Aristeas letter. Kahle believed the purpose of that letter was not to give the history of how the Torah first came to be translated into Greek, but as a propaganda piece to gain favor for a particular Greek version over other rival Greek versions extant in the centuries before Christ (see Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959, 2nd ed., pp. 209-264, where the LXX is discussed at length; very few scholars have adopted Kahle’s theory). Kahle nowhere therein denies the existence of a pre-Christian Greek version of the OT, but even notes pre-Christian--and certainly pre-Origen--Greek manuscripts of the LXX. Ruckman’s claim regarding Kahle’s views is footnoted as from a secondary source (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 41).
And we would challenge those who accept “by faith” what Ruckman has groundlessly affirmed, to present evidence, any evidence whatsoever, that positively supports your claim. It is, after all, a standard principle of argumentation and debate: “They who affirm must also prove.” And since KJVOism’s assertion that there was no pre-Origen LXX is diametrically opposed to the whole of ancient and modern opinion on the matter, the burden of proof (not just bold assertion) rests on them.
On the point at issue here--the date for the Greek translation of the OT commonly called the Septuagint/ LXX,--the view expressed by Methodist scholar Adam Clarke (1762-1832) in his Bible commentary may be cited as typical of Christian scholars generally, with minor differences in details:
“The SEPTUAGINT translation of all the versions of the sacred writings has ever been deemed of the greatest importance by competent judges. I do not, however, design to enter into the controversy concerning this venerable version; the history of it by Aristeas I consider in the main to be a mere fable, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog. Nor do I believe, with many of the fathers, that “seventy or seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos;” or that they were so particularly inspired by God that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, when compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim.”
“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.” (vol. 1, General preface, p. 22. All italics in original; the OT books for which later versions were substituted, or were suspected of being substituted, for the corresponding LXX version, are Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and Ezra. Of course, substitution requires the prior existence of LXX versions of these books.--editor).
The Letter of Aristeas
The Letter of Aristeas--which we recommend that the reader actually read; sources are given in the concluding bibliography--though claiming to date from the mid-3rd century B.C., is generally recognized by experts in the matter to date some time in the half century between 150 and 100 B.C., but not later (Ruckman absurdly, and without a shred of supporting evidence, claims Philo of Alexandria, who lived approximately 20 B.C.--50 A.D., 100 years too late, as the probable author of this letter; see The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 54). As for its contents, they are admittedly largely legendary, like stories of Washington chopping down cherry tree or tossing a dollar across the Potomac River. But just as the legendary nature of some of the stories about Washington do not disprove his existence as a real person, so the fact that many details in the Letter of Aristeas are fabrications does not disprove the existence of the Greek translation of the Law, made in Egypt, in the mid-third century B.C.
One of the books of the Apocrypha is The Wisdom of Ben-Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus. The book was originally written in Hebrew about 185 B.C. by Jesus Ben Sirach, a man deeply steeped in the OT and the wisdom of the Jews. His style is quite similar to that of Proverbs and the proverbial portions of Ecclesiastes. His grandson, also named Jesus (Greek form of Joshua), translated the book from Hebrew into Greek around 132 B.C. The grandson in his prologue to the translation in essence apologizes for the inadequacy of his own translation work, and in the process takes note of the same problem encountered by those who had made a translation of the OT Scriptures: “Wherefore, let me entreat you to read it with favor and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have labored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into an other tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.” (quoted from the AV 1611)
The plain implication of the grandson’s words is that the Hebrew OT--all of it (“the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the Books”--reflecting the three-fold Jewish classification of the OT canon into Law, Prophets and Writings)--had been translated from Hebrew into some other language. On three grounds, we conclude that the particular language into which the Hebrew Scriptures had been translated was Greek, namely: 1. the language in which the readers were reading of these things was Greek, the language of the prologue; 2. the language the grandson had rendered his grandfather’s Hebrew book into was Greek, to which a Hebrew-to-Greek translation of the OT would make a perfect parallel; 3. the grandson was in northern Egypt where he did his translating--where Greek was the language used by the common people, and if they were familiar with any translation of the OT at all, it would almost certainly be a Greek one. Indeed, there is no evidence of any translation of the OT at that time into any language except Greek. So, the grandson of Ben Sirach writes to his readers as though they would of course be familiar with a translation--of the whole OT--into Greek. Therefore, we deduce that a complete version of the OT in Greek existed in northern Egypt by 132 B.C. This one source alone would be sufficient to refute Ruckman’s fraudulent claim, but there are many other witnesses.
Philo of Alexandria
Jewish author Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.--ca. 45 A.D.) wrote extensively in Greek, chiefly seeking to harmonize the teachings of the Old Testament with Greek philosophy, a task he accomplished primarily by allegorizing away the obvious meaning of the Scriptures. In his extensive works, Philo quotes from the Bible in Greek translation, and shows unmistakable familiarity with the Letter of Aristeas. In The Life of Moses, book II, chapters V-VII (C. D. Yonge, translator, The Works of Philo, pp. 493, 494). He summarizes Aristeas' account of the origin and work of making the Greek translation of the Law of Moses, apparently accepting the supernatural inspiration of the Greek translation. First, he notes the seriousness with which the translators undertook their task--
“Considering among themselves how important the affair was to translate laws which had been divinely given by direct inspiration, since they were not able either to take away anything, or to add anything, or to alter anything, but were bound to preserve the original form and character of the whole composition, they looked out for the most completely purified place of all the spots on the outside of the city.”
Philo here echoes the hoped for inalterability of the LXX described in Aristeas, but applies it instead to the original Scriptures. Philo then relates the actual work of translation--
“They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employing the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them.”
The result is thus described:
“If the Chaldeans were to learn the Greek language, and if the Greeks were to learn Chaldean [i.e., Hebrew], and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators were not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted [to] their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.”
Philo goes on to relate that even in his day--centuries after the event--there was an annual celebration of the making of the Greek version of the Law of Moses, a celebration thronged by both Jews and Gentiles, on the island of Pharos in Alexandria’s harbor, where the translation work was carried out.
Thus Philo, a resident of Alexandria where the LXX translation work reportedly took place, uncritically accepts the account of Aristeas, and goes beyond Aristeas in interpreting him to say that each of the translators, working independently, produced verbally identical translations. Philo finds an explanation for this in ascribing to the translators more than mere human labors, crediting them with having the aid of the Spirit who originally moved Moses to write the Law. It should also be noted that Philo limits the work of translation to the Law of Moses, and does not expand it to cover the whole Old Testament.
Flavius Josephus (37 A.D.--c. 100 A.D.), like Philo, was aware of the account of Aristeas. Indeed, in his Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 2, he gives a close paraphrase of about a third of the Letter of Aristeas, mentioning Aristeas by name. Because his account follows Aristeas closely, it does not, like Philo, make extravagant claims of perfection or inspiration of the Greek translation, though he does note the provision for the preservation of the translation from any and all corruption. (Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV, Ralph Marcus, translator, vol. VII, pp. 8, footnote “b”; 9; 55. An older translation of Josephus' whole account can be found in William Whiston, translator, The Works of Josephus, vol. III, pp. 149-163).
Both Philo and Josephus, therefore, not later than the first century A. D., are aware of and do not dispute the account of the origin of a Greek translation of the law as related in the Letter of Aristeas. This is unchallengeable proof that at least the Greek version of the Law known as the Septuagint existed in their day and would certainly have been available to the writers of the New Testament. Those who yet claim a third century A. D. origin for the Septuagint not only have no basis in fact for their absurd claim, they fly in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence of their error.
The earliest extra Biblical writers whose writings are preserved for us are collectively referred to as the “Apostolic fathers,” since their lives overlapped in part with the lives of the Apostles, and in some cases, they actually crossed paths with some of the Apostles. Among these men are Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp and Ignatius. In their extant writings--which date from 95 A.D. to a few decades into the second century A.D. (a century and more before the time of Origen), there are numerous quotations, allusions and references to the OT. All these quotations are in Greek (none of these men had command of Hebrew), which necessarily and absolutely requires and guarantees that they had access to a Greek translation of the OT. A comparison of these Greek quotations shows a close likeness to the LXX as know to us today. For example, in the 16th chapter of his letter to the church at Corinth, Clement of Rome quotes the whole of Isaiah 53, in a form that differs in only minor details from the text as found in the great uncial manuscripts of the 4th century. Obviously, a Greek version, corresponding to and therefore to be identified as the LXX did exist long before Origen, demonstrably at least as early as the first century A.D. when Clement wrote. This one witness alone is sufficient to expose the lie of Ruckman. (The writings of the Apostolic fathers are available in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; and, with the Greek text, in The Apostolic Fathers by J. B. Lightfoot, edited by J. R. Harmer; to note but two sources)
In the second century A.D., there were numerous Greek-speaking Christian writers. They had extensively studied the Bible, and knew well its teaching. They often quoted and made reference to the OT, and did so in Greek. The fact that these Greek speakers, who had no command of Hebrew knew thoroughly the OT and quoted it with great frequency in Greek in their writings, necessarily demands that there was a complete Greek translation of the OT. We are not left in the dark as to which translation it was; by their own admission and references, it was the Greek version known as the Septuagint, whose long existence and origin more than 3 centuries earlier is abundantly testified to by them.
Born of pagan parents in Samaria around A.D. 100, Justin Martyr became a Christian in his early thirties, and thereafter spent his life as a propagator of and apologist for the Christianity, until he was martyred for his faith in A.D. 165 (see “Justin Martyr,” by G. L. Carey, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 558)
In an apologetic commonly ascribed to him, "A Hortatory Address to the Greeks," Justin shows full familiarity with the Aristeas legend of the origin of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, including Philo's embellishment of the story regarding the precise verbal agreement of all the separate translations of the seventy individual translators, noting that Ptolemy "was struck with amazement and believed that the translation had been written by divine power." Ptolemy had reportedly required that there be no collusion between the translators so that he could be assured of the accuracy of their version. Justin further notes that he had personally been to Alexandria, had seen the place of translation and had spoken with local inhabitants about the events surrounding the making of the LXX translation. He appeals by name to the accounts of these things in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus as proof that he has given an accurate account. Justin also declares, "that the books relating to our religion [viz., the Old Testament] are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf." (Quoted from "Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks," translated by Marcus Dods, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, pp. 278, 279. Some, including Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. I, p. 205, believe this work to be pseudonymous and therefore falsely ascribed to Justin. The alleged third century date of writing--if pseudonymous--still makes it an early testimony regarding the view of the LXX current among early Christians).
A native of Smyrna in Asia Minor, but having Lyons in Southern Gaul (France) as the chief scene of his ministerial labors, Irenaeus was among the most prominent of Christian leaders in the second half of the second century A. D. In his book "Against Heresies," chapter 21, he defends the accuracy of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14, particularly the translation of the Hebrew word almah by the Greek word parthenos, which means "virgin." He particularly defends the LXX against the revisions made in the verse (namely, making the Hebrew word mean "young woman") by the Greek versions of Theodotion and Aquila, Jewish proselytes, and that of the Ebionites (that is, the translation of Symmachus). We will say more about these three versions shortly.
Irenaeus defends the LXX on several grounds, first of all its pre-Christian Jewish origin, which precludes any pro-Christian bias on the part of the translators. At this point, he relates the Aristeas legend, but with certain expansions. First, it is the Scriptures, that is, the whole Hebrew Old Testament, not just the Law which is said to have been translated (a necessity, since Isaiah, which is under discussion, is not a part of the Law). Second, he inserts into the account--as does Justin's "Hortatory Address to the Greeks"--that Ptolemy, as a test of the translators, compelled them to work each man separately:
“But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books.”
The amazing result of their separate labors is then noted:
“But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God.”
Irenaeus defends the ability of God to inspire a translation by appeal to the event (reported in the apocryphal book II Esdras 14) after the Babylonian exile, when God "inspired Esdras the priest of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets," or so Irenaeus tells it.
He then continues with the claims of the inalterability of the LXX:
“Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt,. . . truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, . . .” (See "Irenaeus Against Heresies," in Roberts and Donaldson, op. cit., p. 451-2)
Clement of Alexandria
This Clement (ca. 150-ca. 215 A.D.), wrote of the translation of the OT Scriptures as a past historic fact: “Wherefore also the Scriptures were translated into the language of the Greeks, so that they might never be able to allege the excuse of ignorance.” (“Stromata” in Roberts and Donaldson, op. cit., vol. II, p. 308) The translation meant by Clement is that described in the famous “Letter of Aristeas,” though Clement understands the work to encompass the whole OT, not just the Law--
“It is said that the Scriptures, both of the law and of the prophets were translated
from the dialect of the Hebrews into the Greek language in the reign of Ptolemy the son of Lagos, or, according to others, of Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus; Demetrius Phalereus bringing to the task the greatest earnestness and employing painstaking accuracy on the materials for the translation. For the Macedonians being still in possession of Asia, and the king being ambitious of adorning the library he had at Alexandria with all writings, desired the people of Jerusalem to translate the prophecies they possessed into the Greek dialect. And they being the subjects of the Macedonians, selected from those of the highest character among them seventy elders, versed in the Scriptures, and skilled in the Greek dialect, and sent them to him with the divine books. And each having severally translated each prophetic book, and all the translations being compared together, they agreed both in meaning and expression. For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit of Grecian ears. It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy.” (ibid, p. 334).
It is immediately evident that Clement knows and accepts, with embellishments, the account given of the LXX in “the Letter of Aristeas.” He lives in the city where this work is reported to have occurred, where the facts are most likely to be known, and he does not deny that a complete Greek translation of the OT has long existed. Indeed, he employed this very Greek version in his own Bible study, for his writings--all in Greek--have many OT quotes and references.
These and other pre-Origen Christian fathers knew of and accepted the Aristeas account of production the Greek OT, a translation which they had long known and used in their Bible study. In the face of their evidence by itself, to deny that there was a pre-Origen, indeed, pre-Christian, Greek translation of the whole OT is insanity.
ANCIENT VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS
Jewish revisions of LXX
The use by early Christians of the LXX as their OT text provoked a strong response from the contemporary Jews. They objected to some of the LXX renderings, chief among them Isaiah 7:14, where the LXX read parthenos (“virgin”), supporting the NT doctrine of the virgin birth of the Messiah, a doctrine the unbelieving Jews could not abide. Desiring some alternative to the continued use the LXX, three Greek translations of the OT were produced either by Jews or Jewish proselytes in the second century A.D. Two of these were new translations, intended as substitutes for the LXX, namely the version of Aquila, a very unliterary, often slavishly, unintelligibly literal version, and that of Symmachus, a highly polished, literary version. The third translation, a revision of the LXX, designed to correct its errors and make it more accurate, was that of Theodotion of Ephesus. (Some account of these versions is found in most of the standard works on the Septuagint listed in the bibliography below). Without describing these versions in greater detail, let it simply be noted--you cannot prepare a version as a substitute for another, nor can you revise or correct a translation that doesn’t exist. In short, the very production and existence of these three Jewish-made Greek versions of the OT which were by design intended to supplant and supercede the LXX are proof that the LXX did really exist, and was the OT of the second century Christians.
The Old Latin Version
A further witness to the existence of a pre-Origen Greek translation of the OT--the whole OT--is the Old Latin version of the Old Testament. In this context, let us quote Edward F. Hills, a scholar favorably viewed by the KJVO camp: “The earliest Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint. Scholars think that this translating was probably done at Carthage during the 2nd century [A.D.]” (The King James Version Defended, 1973, p. 95). Obviously, Hills accepts without question the existence in the 2nd century A.D., well before Origen’s time, of the Septuagint Greek version, for a Latin version was made from it in North Africa! And here Hills is expressing the broad consensus: a Latin version of the OT was made in North Africa in the 2nd Christian century, and its base text was the Septuagint Greek version. (See, as typical of this consensus, Ernst Wuerthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979; pp. 87-8]). Obviously you cannot translate “nothing” from Greek into Latin; a Greek version necessarily had to exist at that time.
All of these lines of evidence, indeed, any one of them standing alone, is sufficient proof, even without any actual manuscripts of the LXX dating to before Origen. But we have some of those as well. Melvin K. H. Peters, e.g., in his article “Septuagint” (Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. V, p. 1094, lists 10 papyrii manuscripts of the OT in Greek which date from the 2nd century B.C. to the early 1st century A.D. Most are from the Torah, but one is the important Minor Prophets scroll from the Judean desert. He notes the existence of other slightly later manuscripts. Sidney Jellicoe (The Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 224-242) lists and describes the papyrus witnesses to the LXX, some of which are pre-Christian, some from the first century A.D., and others pre-Origenic (as well as others post-Origenic). These all testify to the existence of a Greek version of the OT before the imagined mid-3rd century A.D. date of origin for the LXX. They cannot be explained away or simply rejected out of hand, as Ruckman (and Brandenburg) does.
[The concluding portion of this study will be published in the next issue of “As I See It”--ed.]
Brian Lamb is the founding CEO of C-SPAN, the cable television network that, among other things, televises the official goings on of the U.S. Congress. Lamb began hosting a weekly broadcast called Booknotes on C-SPAN in 1989, in which he interviewed the authors of recently published books--all of which Lamb reportedly read through before the interviews--about their books, their subjects, how the work came about, notable things they discovered and similar matters. (I have never viewed this program myself. I don’t have cable, and it isn’t just because I am cheap).
From these interviews, excerpts of those of authors of biographies of notable Americans from the 18th century to the present are here compiled (some 77 authors and biographies in all). The dialogue is left in largely unedited, as-delivered conversational form. A few of the authors come across as very poorly-informed individuals, making glaring historical blunders and mistakes. Of course, a man may be a good writer but a poor interviewee, but characteristic accuracy is a redeeming virtue in writers of biographies.
I had read a few of biographies covered before picking up this book, and as a result of reading these interviews will--I hope--read several others that I had otherwise only known by title. And there are some that I will most assured not read, based on what I learned here. And that, of course, is what a book about books is supposed to do for you--direct your attention both to books that you might otherwise miss and away from books that you might otherwise read.
There are similar books of compilations from the Booknotes broadcasts on other topics, which should prove similarly helpful to the reader who wants some guidance and direction on what could well be, or likely would not be, profitable reading among the mass of books that have appeared in print in recent years.