Did Christians "tamper" with the Septuagint?

[Christian2]

The accusation is that the Christians tampered with it. This one comes from a Jew:

It is absolutely a fact that the LXX underwent several rewrites, especially under the hand of Origen in his Hexapla.

And this one:

The text was indeed translated before Jesus' lifetime. However, the text was ALTERED after the composition of the NT, specifically in regard to the verses that were quoted in the NT. Where we might say "The verses match because the author was quoting the LXX text," the opposite might be true (and is true in many cases): namely, that the texts match because a revisionist altered the text of the LXX to match that of the NT citation.

Any help with this question would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[technomage]

To assert that a text was tampered with, one must be able to point to variants. Do any variants exist? If not, the accusation is simply speculation without evidence.

[Red Wine]

Also a question would be is what we obstensibly have today the tampered-with version or the more ancient, pre-Christian? Is it the claim that all original versions were wiped out via conspiracy theory from history? I mean I can tamper with my Bible tonight, sects have/do tamper with it as we speak, Voltaire said it was on the way out...LXX is just another document open to it.

Perhaps Isaiah 53 is thoroughly tampered with...a comforting thought to some.

[Christian2]

To assert that a text was tampered with, one must be able to point to variants. Do any variants exist? If not, the accusation is simply speculation without evidence.

This link was given to me as evidence of "tampering."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm

It is a side by side view of the Septuagint, the New Testament and the MT.

I haven't gone through them all yet.

[Christian2]

Also a question would be is what we obstensibly have today the tampered-with version or the more ancient, pre-Christian? Is it the claim that all original versions were wiped out via conspiracy theory from history? I mean I can tamper with my Bible tonight, sects have/do tamper with it as we speak, Voltaire said it was on the way out...LXX is just another document open to it.

Perhaps Isaiah 53 is thoroughly tampered with...a comforting thought to some.

What I need to find is whether Origen changed anything in favor of the Christian view/theology.

I always thought that Origen's Hexapla was just an attempt by him to compare Scriptures/translations and nothing else, similar to what we might want to do if we had some Scriptures we wanted to compare -- put them side by side.

[Johnny MacManky]

The accusation is that the Christians tampered with it. . . .

Any help with this question would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Is the person making the accusation a 'real life' aquaintance and you need help answering their accusation, or are you citing a claim made in writing.online by someone?

[Christian2]

Is the person making the accusation a 'real life' aquaintance and you need help answering their accusation, or are you citing a claim made in writing.online by someone?

The claim was made on a Jewish discussion board. I'd like to smash it if I can.

[technomage]

This link was given to me as evidence of "tampering."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm

It is a side by side view of the Septuagint, the New Testament and the MT.

I haven't gone through them all yet.

Well, the problem is, there are places where the Septuagint does differ from the MT. That has been established long before, but the presence of Septuagint-version Hebrew scriptures in the Qumran library indicate that Christians did not tamper with the Septuagint--it indicates that the text of the Tanakh was not stable.

Beyond that, I can only say that your Jewish acquaintance is making an accusation withoout evidence.

[Christian2]

Well, the problem is, there are places where the Septuagint does differ from the MT. That has been established long before, but the presence of Septuagint-version Hebrew scriptures in the Qumran library indicate that Christians did not tamper with the Septuagint--it indicates that the text of the Tanakh was not stable.

Beyond that, I can only say that your Jewish acquaintance is making an accusation withoout evidence.

This is what I think too.

Months ago I asked a Christian a similar question when I first became interested in the Septuagint.. He said:

As my memory serves me, toward the close of the first century AD, the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Massorite text, was changed from the original and reworded several prophecies so that Jesus' fulfillment of these prophesies would be less apparent. Because the original text was destroyed and lost, our modern Old Testament is translated from this changed Mossorite text and because of this, there is an interest in the Septuagint by Christians because it is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew text that was approved by the Jewish elders before Jesus and the subsequent reworded Massorite text came into being.

In other words, the Septuagint makes a stronger argument that Jesus is the long awaited son of David, the Annointed One, the Jewish Messiah.

I had the statement above verified by someone who graduated seminary.

Now I have the Jews saying that the Christians "tampered" with their Scriptures and some Christians saying that the Jews "tampered" with their Scriptures. :lol:

[Johnny MacManky]

The claim was made on a Jewish discussion board. I'd like to smash it if I can.

Okay. I'm broadly in agreement with Technomage (he's a smart kid... :neener:) but if you need to ask the question here, are you really up to the task? What happens when the folks there ask the next question, and this time provide some evidence?

I don't see whatever Origin did as being relevant to comparisons between what the N.T. writers quoted and what the Hebrew text says.

[Christian2]

Okay. I'm broadly in agreement with Technomage (he's a smart kid... :neener:) but if you need to ask the question here, are you really up to the task? What happens when the folks there ask the next question, and this time provide some evidence?

I don't see whatever Origin did as being relevant to comparisons between what the N.T. writers quoted and what the Hebrew text says.

Am I up to the task? Probably not. LOL

I would probably come back here and ask some more help.

I also think that when someone has their mind set on an issue, it is pretty much set and there probably isn't much one can do about it.

Everyone makes their own journey.

[Weboh2]

The claim was made on a Jewish discussion board. I'd like to smash it if I can.

Origen had no choice but to follow the "LXX" where the NT quoted it. Since the greek translated existed before the "LXX", I don't see any way he can prove his claim.

[Christian2]

Origen had no choice but to follow the "LXX" where the NT quoted it. Since the greek translated existed before the "LXX", I don't see any way he can prove his claim.

Good point.

[Jezz]

This is what I think too.

Months ago I asked a Christian a similar question when I first became interested in the Septuagint.. He said:

As my memory serves me, toward the close of the first century AD, the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Massorite text, was changed from the original and reworded several prophecies so that Jesus' fulfillment of these prophesies would be less apparent. Because the original text was destroyed and lost, our modern Old Testament is translated from this changed Mossorite text and because of this, there is an interest in the Septuagint by Christians because it is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew text that was approved by the Jewish elders before Jesus and the subsequent reworded Massorite text came into being.

In other words, the Septuagint makes a stronger argument that Jesus is the long awaited son of David, the Annointed One, the Jewish Messiah.

I had the statement above verified by someone who graduated seminary.

Now I have the Jews saying that the Christians "tampered" with their Scriptures and some Christians saying that the Jews "tampered" with their Scriptures. :lol:

You might find this cite interesting:

Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages.

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.

(From here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxi.html).)

There are similar allegations in the next couple of chapters.

The Dialog was written in the mid 2nd century AD, so as you can see the accusation that the Jews changed the Scriptures is actually a very old one. It is interesting to note that St Justin had the above dialog with Trypho before Origen was even born.

Also, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, many of the OT texts (Hebrew and Greek) uncovered at Qumran agree with the 4th century copies of the LXX that we have (Alexandrinus, Sinaticus and Vaticanus). The Qumran texts date to before the destruction of Jerusalem, in AD 70.

Modern-day Jewish anti-missionaries use Origen as a convenient scapegoat for the differences between the LXX and the MT (Masoretic Text) in the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses make Constantine the scapegoat for the Trinity. They seem to attribute to him a great deal of influence. Now, there is no doubting that Origen was a great theologian and a prodigious writer and that his influence was indeed great, but I have a hard time believing that he had the power to change all the copies of the LXX across the entire Church - let alone that he had the power to alter St Justin's copy, and the Qumran copies, prior to his own birth!

The Orthodox Church has used the LXX as its preferred OT since the time of the Apostles. It is the version that the Apostles quoted from, and it is the version that Christ Himself quoted from. That is why most of the NT quotes agree with the LXX, but sometimes diverge from the MT reading. It is clear that St Justin preferred it in the 2nd century, and that he was aware of divergences. To this day, if you go to an Orthodox service in the Greek language, you will hear the Psalms read pretty much as St Justin and the Apostles would have read them from their LXXs.

Incidentally, if you're going to be dialoguing with Jews, you really should read the whole of St Justin's Dialog. You'll find that very few of the arguments that come up between Jews and Christians are new, and St Justin has probably already dealt with many of the objections you have met (and probably quite a few that you haven't yet met).

[Weboh2]

I will disagree with you on one point. The "LXX" was and has always been a bad copy of pre-existing greek scriptures, ever since it was commissioned. The "LXX" contains only the books of the law according to the account. The Israelite Sanhedrin aka the Israelite Senate gladly agreed upon alterations beforehand to suit the Egyptians. They had to check each other's copies to be sure, hence they were glad the alterations were the same.

[technomage]

Weboh, excuse me, but ... what hat did you pull that from?

[Weboh2]

The talmud

[Dee Dee Warren]

the same talmud that claims that father's contribute all the "white matter" to a child, such as the bones, brains, and white's of the eyes, while the mother contributes all the "red matter"?

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Christian2 - arguing with antimissionaries is useless. If you would like an example of a response I did that took about four months and to which they responded with more obfuscation - here it is

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwho.html

If you have a sincere seeking Jewish friend, it is totally worth it. Aguing with anti-missionaries online is just a waste of precious time. It is worse than arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a pre-programmed track that they run on, and it is near hopeless to get them off of it.

Here is the brief portion of that post where I dealt with the same old nonproven claim of altering:

And even more interesting, I inquired about scholarly works and comments on the LXX seeing if I could learn more about this "irrefutable fact" of widespread Christian deceitful alterations, especially in key Christological passages. Do you want to know what I found? Nothing. There are no well-respected scholars who hold this position nor has such a position survived strict scholarly review. [EN:10] There are no chapters devoted to this act in scholarly works on the LXX. What I did find is work stating that the presumption that the MT must needfully be closer to the autographa is in error such as by the respected scholar Emmanuel Tov:

"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:11]

I even at that time went through the trouble of speaking to Peter Flint on the phone.

[technomage]

"The Talmud" is a series of books. Please make a specific citation, or withdraw the assertion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The Talmud also is hardly unbiased, being post-Christian and unabashedly polemic against Christianity in some spots - it is an interesting historical aside, but hardly scholarly proof

[technomage]

The Talmud also is hardly unbiased, being post-Christian and unabashedly polemic against Christianity in some spots - it is an interesting historical aside, but hardly scholarly proof

Actually, the Talmud is either mostly or totally silent on the topic of Christianity--most (perhaps all) of the specifically anti-Christian bits (there are very few) were added sometime around the 12th to 14th centuries CE.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I was referring to those parts.

[technomage]

I was referring to those parts.
:doh: Don't mind me--I got crossed wires. Researching the so-called "Jewish Slanders" in the Talmud was a project I set for myself last year.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problemo, you most certainly know more about it than I do - I probably should have been quiet on that point.

[Weboh2]

The talmud implies that the letter of Aristeas is a forgery by citing the changes that were made to pacify Egyptian suspicion. But if one were to accept the talmud version of events, there is the implication of a pre-existing greek translation. The changes cited are usually either polytheistic or have anthropomorphic theistic qualities, when compared with the MT or even the current "LXX". Furthermore, the "LXX" was only a translation of the law, because the egyptian king only wanted the religious law translated.

It was no miracle that they noticed when they checked each other documents that each other's "translation" matched. Translation has the implication of transcription in old languages, BTW.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/lxx.html

[Christian2]

And Christian2 - arguing with antimissionaries is useless. If you would like an example of a response I did that took about four months and to which they responded with more obfuscation - here it is

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwho.html

If you have a sincere seeking Jewish friend, it is totally worth it. Aguing with anti-missionaries online is just a waste of precious time. It is worse than arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a pre-programmed track that they run on, and it is near hopeless to get them off of it.

Here is the brief portion of that post where I dealt with the same old nonproven claim of altering:

And even more interesting, I inquired about scholarly works and comments on the LXX seeing if I could learn more about this "irrefutable fact" of widespread Christian deceitful alterations, especially in key Christological passages. Do you want to know what I found? Nothing. There are no well-respected scholars who hold this position nor has such a position survived strict scholarly review. [EN:10] There are no chapters devoted to this act in scholarly works on the LXX. What I did find is work stating that the presumption that the MT must needfully be closer to the autographa is in error such as by the respected scholar Emmanuel Tov:

"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:11]

I even at that time went through the trouble of speaking to Peter Flint on the phone.

Thanks Darth Xena. I am printing off your article to read later. You do good work. I've read some of your stuff. Your preterist article was excellent and it showed a tremendous amount of work on your part.

I don't know if I have a sincere seeking Jewish friend or not, but there are more than one of them, plus a Muslim, so I am up against some hardliners, so to speak. The Muslim keeps saying that the Christians "forged" the OT Scriptures.

My hope is that even if these guys are not sincere there may be some silent readers who are sincere.

I don't ever feel that my time is wasted. If nothing else, I am still learning. :teeth:

Thanks again and thanks to all who took the time to respond to my topic.

[Jezz]

I will disagree with you on one point. The "LXX" was and has always been a bad copy of pre-existing greek scriptures, ever since it was commissioned.
And the fact that it agrees with Hebrew copies of the OT found at Qumran is explained... how? They translated it from Greek back into Hebrew again? :ahem:


The "LXX" contains only the books of the law according to the account.
Technically, this is correct. The translation by the 70 was for the Torah only, and hence only those books are technically "the LXX". The translations of the other books were added to the collection later. Some scholarly pedants (eg Jaltus :smile:) insist on referring to the complete Greek OT as "the Greek OT", but most simply refer to the whole collection as the LXX.


The Israelite Sanhedrin aka the Israelite Senate gladly agreed upon alterations beforehand to suit the Egyptians. They had to check each other's copies to be sure, hence they were glad the alterations were the same.
Well, I'm going to have to join the others in asking for substantiation of this view. "The Dialogue" of St Justin predates the Talmud, IIRC.

[Weboh2]

And the fact that it agrees with Hebrew copies of the OT found at Qumran is explained... how? They translated it from Greek back into Hebrew again? :ahem:
I think you misunderstand me. I believe there to be a pre-existing greek translation which is not the "LXX".


Technically, this is correct. The translation by the 70 was for the Torah only, and hence only those books are technically "the LXX". The translations of the other books were added to the collection later. Some scholarly pedants (eg Jaltus :smile:) insist on referring to the complete Greek OT as "the Greek OT", but most simply refer to the whole collection as the LXX.
Pure speculation and Jewish proganda. The greek translation included the prophets even before the "LXX" was commissioned. Why wouldn't it be?


Well, I'm going to have to join the others in asking for substantiation of this view. "The Dialogue" of St Justin predates the Talmud, IIRC.
But the changes to the greek in the "LXX" pre-date St. Justin. They are polytheistic and anthropomorphic in tendency. The one of the 72 is simply not the original greek translation, and the talmud accurately proves the "translation" was sabotaged. The talmud just simply overlooks the fact where there had to be a pre-existing greek translation. Hence, the talmud is biased and assumes there wasn't a pre-existing greek translation.

[technomage]

I think you misunderstand me. I believe there to be a pre-existing greek translation which is not the "LXX".

Based on what evidence, precisely?

[Panayioti]

In regards to the Septuagint it is not at all correct to say that it has been tampered with in any true sense of the term, nor does it put forward a polytheistic attitude. I have devoted the last 10 years of my life studying and searching as many texts as I can get my hands on as well as talking with some of the best minds in the field and the assertion that the LXX was somehow "Altered" is simply perposterous.

First, if the MT Torah and the LXX Pentateuch are compared the two are virtually identical. as for the rest of the OT there is an ebb and flow with variants abound, but not "altering."

Psalm 22 is the perfect example: Both the Lxx and the Qumron documents found on this passage support the rendering in the LXX as opposed to the MT text. Thus, the proper reading is "They have pierced my hands and my feet." Further interesting that if you look to the variants of the MT text this reading is a minority reading depending on where the consonnents are placed in the Hebrew text. So is this an alteration? Hardly.

Esaias 7:14 is not though of as an alteration, but a dispute over the meaning of "Parthenos" by Hebrews. Equivalent to me as an English-Speaker to tell as French speaker what a given french word means even though its common usage in French is well known by all French Speakers. Is this an alteration?

What about Genesis 3 and the protoevangelion. in the Jewish Publication Society's English translation it reads that "THEY will bruise your head and you will bruise THEIR heel." However, if you read the STONE EDITION TANAK it reads: And HE will bruise your head and you will bruise HIS heel." is traditional Messianic passage in Both Judaism and Christianity was intentionally altered by the JPS, but on by Orthodox Jews. Why is that?

The truth of the matter is that the LXX is much more reliable than people give it credit for and has alwasy in the West been used to clariy the MT.

Instead of using the word "Alterations" they correct word should be "Variants." the LXX favors certain variants over others present in the MT, and that's ok.

Peter

[Weboh2]

The talmud quotes the alterations which don't exist any other greek translation. They anthropomorphic and polytheistic. They were afraid of the Egyptians, so they made it look good. To say the greek OT originated with the one of the seventy two at that time is rediculous. The greek old testament existed before ptomely wanted a copy of the law, and the variants given to the Ptomely are in the talmud. Why else would all 72 copies agree?

[technomage]

The talmud quotes the alterations which don't exist any other greek translation.

Excuse me, but I've previously asked you to cite specifically in the Talmud you find this information. You forgot to do so, or neglected my request, or something. Please--what tractate, and what section, are such ... mistranslations quoted?

[Weboh2]

And I already posted the link to the site that has the examples.

[technomage]

That site does not give Talmud references. Excuse me, I was thinking of the wrong site.

ETA: The claim made on the site you cite is false. We have fragments of the LXX version of the Minor Prophets dating back to the 1st century BCE. It is safe to assume that there was an "official" Greek LXX before the Christian era.

[Johnny MacManky]

:yeahthat:

[Weboh2]

I am merely saying we shouldn't call it the LXX, and that the greek OT existed even before the one of LXX (seventy). It was not done by the Jews, because of a Ptomely of Egypt.

[technomage]

I am merely saying we shouldn't call it the LXX, and that the greek OT existed even before the one of LXX (seventy). It was not done by the Jews, because of a Ptomely of Egypt.
Weboh, I don't care what unevidenced fantasies you pull out of your hat. Yes, the LXX existed before the Christian era.

[Weboh2]

Weboh, I don't care what unevidenced fantasies you pull out of your hat. Yes, the LXX existed before the Christian era.
It is clearly evidenced in the Talmud that the Greek Old Testament existed before the LXX.

[technomage]

Weboh, the Talmud is like any other book--capable of error, opinion, and "spin." We have fragmentary copies of the Septuagint dating from the 1st century BCE--not a general "Greek OT," but the Septuagint specifically. We have copies of Hebrew language texts that follow the Septuagint documentary variation.

The allegations given in the Talmud are wrong.

[judge]

Any help with this question would be appreciated.

Thanks.


The main problem I see is that the NT does not quote the LXX exclusively.

It agrees with.

1.The Hebrew massorectic text at times.

2. The LXX at times

3.Aramaic targums at times.

4.No known version at times.

5.The DSS (Ithink as well)

[Weboh2]

Weboh, the Talmud is like any other book--capable of error, opinion, and "spin." We have fragmentary copies of the Septuagint dating from the 1st century BCE--not a general "Greek OT," but the Septuagint specifically. We have copies of Hebrew language texts that follow the Septuagint documentary variation.

The allegations given in the Talmud are wrong.
I don't even agree with allegations that the LXX was only greek copy at the time. Calling the Greek Old Testament-- the LXX is just ignorance. Certainly the variations quoted in the talmud did exist, but they weren't common to the Greek Old Testament. Hence, the story about how the sanhedrin agreed to make changes beforehand. And alas, all 72 copies agreed. I doubt that they had one hebrew copy of the old testament with them.

[John Reece]

Calling the Greek Old Testament-- the LXX is just ignorance.

The term "LXX" has a semantic range in the realm of biblical scholarship that includes not only the Pentateuch but also the entirety of all Greek OT texts.

See, for instance, Septuaginta [LXX], edited by Alfred Rahlfs and published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Rahlfs' Septuaginta is the standard edition of the entirety of the Greek OT.

See also The Septuagint and Modern Study by Sidney Jellicoe, wherein the term "LXX" is used not only with regard to the Pentateuch but also with regard to all Greek OT texts.

In The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, the author, the eminent scholar Emanuel Tov, uses the term "LXX" in its full range of meanings, which includes the entirety of the Greek OT texts. Tov, the J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Hebrew University, has been the Editor-in-Chief of the international Qumran Publications Project since 1990.

See also Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, wherein the term "LXX" is used not only with regard to the Pentateuch but also with regard to all Greek OT texts. Both Jobes (Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary) and Silva (Ph.D., University of Manchester) have taught biblical studies at Westmont College. Silva has also taught biblical studies at Westminster Theological Seminary and at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the author of Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.

[Sevivon1913]

The Talmud also is hardly unbiased, being post-Christian and unabashedly polemic against Christianity in some spots - it is an interesting historical aside, but hardly scholarly proof

If I had an Israeli document about the Holocaust or Zionism, and it was replaced by new copies by Iranian scholars, do you think the end-result would look like the original document? Clearly not, and so it is with the septuagint. It's been completely edited. It is not the original (mythical) 'LXX' at all, but a total deception. The real LXX (well, the real mythical one), says the Talmud, contained certain very specific edits to the Hebrew text which are NOWHERE to be found in the extant Septuagint manuscripts (of which the earliest date to the 4th Century CE). Another thing: it's inaccurate and bizarre to label Greek translations of the Bible as "the septuagint" or "the LXX"; it would be akin to a Japanese scholar 500 years from now saying all English translations were the "King James" Bible.

BTW, on whether the NT authors used Greek or Hebrew, look at Exodus 1:5 from the original Hebrew (which is sneakily renamed "Masoretic"):

5. Now all those descended from Jacob were seventy souls, and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt.

Now compare with the Greek Septuagint text of the same verse:

5. But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five.

And now look at Acts 7:14 and compare:

14. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, seventy souls.

Either the Septuagint contained this blatant error, OR it was added so as to align with an error in the New Testament. Either way, it's wrong. Clearly the authors of the New Testament were not Jewish at all, and were instead relying on the VERY inaccurate Septuagint translation (which said 70) into Greek. Why would Hebrew or Aramaic speaking Jews do such a thing? To write God's new "revelation" in the heathen language? Unlikely.

Also, the Septuagint was copied by Christian scribes during a time when the Church was run by self-confessed fraudsters (i.e. Eusebius).

I am very suspicious of the Septuagint.

[Christian2]

If I had an Israeli document about the Holocaust or Zionism, and it was replaced by new copies by Iranian scholars, do you think the end-result would look like the original document? Clearly not, and so it is with the septuagint. It's been completely edited. It is not the original (mythical) 'LXX' at all, but a total deception. The real LXX (well, the real mythical one), says the Talmud, contained certain very specific edits to the Hebrew text which are NOWHERE to be found in the extant Septuagint manuscripts (of which the earliest date to the 4th Century CE). Another thing: it's inaccurate and bizarre to label Greek translations of the Bible as "the septuagint" or "the LXX"; it would be akin to a Japanese scholar 500 years from now saying all English translations were the "King James" Bible.

BTW, on whether the NT authors used Greek or Hebrew, look at Exodus 1:5 from the original Hebrew (which is sneakily renamed "Masoretic"):

5. Now all those descended from Jacob were seventy souls, and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt.

Now compare with the Greek Septuagint text of the same verse:

5. But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five.

And now look at Acts 7:14 and compare:

14. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, seventy souls.

Either the Septuagint contained this blatant error, OR it was added so as to align with an error in the New Testament. Either way, it's wrong. Clearly the authors of the New Testament were not Jewish at all, and were instead relying on the VERY inaccurate Septuagint translation (which said 70) into Greek. Why would Hebrew or Aramaic speaking Jews do such a thing? To write God's new "revelation" in the heathen language? Unlikely.

Also, the Septuagint was copied by Christian scribes during a time when the Church was run by self-confessed fraudsters (i.e. Eusebius).

I am very suspicious of the Septuagint.


And I am very suspicious of someone who does not do a little googling to find out the answer to what he claims to be a "blatant error." It took me about 3 minutes to find the answer.

[John Reece]

And I am very suspicious of someone who does not do a little googling to find out the answer to what he claims to be a "blatant error." It took me about 3 minutes to find the answer.

Is this (http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040822.htm) what you found?

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:

How many were in Jacob's family when they came into Egypt, 70 (Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5), or 75 (Acts 7:14)? Is there a contradiction?

RESPONSE:

In Genesis 46:27, we read about 70 children of Jacob. They can be summarized as follows:
33 — children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren through Leah (v 8-15);
16 — children, and grandchildren through Zilpah (v 16-18);
7 — children, and grandchildren through Rachel (v 19-22);
14 — children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren through Bilhah (v 23-25)

70 — total number of Jacob's descendants listed.

Why does Luke list 75? The Septuagint, which Luke would have used as a source, includes the following in Genesis 46:27, "...the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt, were nine souls...", and therefore concludes, "...all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt, were seventy-five souls."

The number of travelers with Jacob is given as 66 persons (v 26). Follow the math with me:
66 — travellers with Jacob to Egypt;
2 — sons of Jacob already in Egypt (Joseph & Benjamin)
2 — grandsons of Jacob already in Egypt (Ephraim & Manasseh)
5 — great-grandsons of Jacob already in Egypt (1 Chr 7:14-21)

75 — the number of people listed by Luke, and by the Septuagint version of Gn 46:27 and Ex 1:5.

There is no contradiction.

[Christian2]

Is this (http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040822.htm) what you found?

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:

How many were in Jacob's family when they came into Egypt, 70 (Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5), or 75 (Acts 7:14)? Is there a contradiction?

RESPONSE:

In Genesis 46:27, we read about 70 children of Jacob. They can be summarized as follows:
33 — children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren through Leah (v 8-15);
16 — children, and grandchildren through Zilpah (v 16-18);
7 — children, and grandchildren through Rachel (v 19-22);
14 — children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren through Bilhah (v 23-25)

70 — total number of Jacob's descendants listed.

Why does Luke list 75? The Septuagint, which Luke would have used as a source, includes the following in Genesis 46:27, "...the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt, were nine souls...", and therefore concludes, "...all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt, were seventy-five souls."

The number of travelers with Jacob is given as 66 persons (v 26). Follow the math with me:
66 — travellers with Jacob to Egypt;
2 — sons of Jacob already in Egypt (Joseph & Benjamin)
2 — grandsons of Jacob already in Egypt (Ephraim & Manasseh)
5 — great-grandsons of Jacob already in Egypt (1 Chr 7:14-21)

75 — the number of people listed by Luke, and by the Septuagint version of Gn 46:27 and Ex 1:5.

There is no contradiction.

Hi John,


It wasn't the site you cited but another, but, yes, the explanation is the same.