The Jews were scattered from their homeland and there was a need of the Scriptures in the common language of that day. Septuagint (meaning "seventy" and usually abbreviated by use of the Roman numerals LXX) was a name given to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in the reign of King Ptolemy Philadelphia of Egypt (285-246 BC).
F. F. Bruce gives an interesting rendering of the origin of the name for this translation. Concerning a letter purporting to be written around 250 BC (more realistically a short time before 100 BC) by Aristeas, a court official of King Ptolemy, to his brother Philocrates, Bruce states:
"Ptolemy was renowned as a patron of literature and it was under him that the great library at Alexandria, one of the world's cultural wonders for 900 years, was inaugurated. The letter describes how Demetrius of Phalerum, said to have been Ptolemy's librarian, aroused the king's interest in the Jewish Law and advised him to send a delegation to the high priest, Eleazar, at Jerusalem. The high priest chose as translators six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel and sent them to Alexandria, along with a specially accurate and beautiful parchment of the Torah. The elders were royally dined and wined, and proved their wisdom in debate; then they took up their residence in a house on the island of Pharos (the island otherwise famed for its lighthouse), where in seventy-two days they completed their task of translating the Pentateuch into Greek, presenting an agreed version as the result of conference and comparison."
The LXX, being very close to the Massoretic Text (AD 916) we have today, helps to establish the reliability of its transmission through 1,300 years. The greatest divergence of the LXX from the Massoretic text is Jeremiah.
The LXX and the scriptural citations found in the apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Jubilees, etc., give evidence that the Hebrew text today is substantially the same as the text about 300 BC.
Geisler and Nix, in their most helpful work, A General Introduction to the Bible, give four important contributions of the Septuagint. "(1) It bridged the religious gap between the Hebrew- and Greek-speaking peoples, as it met the needs of the Alexandrian Jews, (2) it bridged the historical gap between the Hebrew Old Testament of the Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians who would use it with their New Testament, (3) and it provided a precedent for missionaries to make translations of the Scriptures into various languages and dialects; (4) it bridges the textual criticism gap by its substantial agreement with the Hebrew Old Testament text (Aleph, A, B, C, et al.)."
F. F. Bruce gives several reasons why the Jews lost interest in the Septuagint:
SAMARITAN TEXT (fifth century B.C.)
This text contains the Pentateuch and is valuable to determine textual readings. Bruce says that "the variations between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Massoretic edition (AD 916) of these books are quite insignificant by comparison with the area of agreement."
THE TARGUMS (appear in written form - copies, about AD 500)
Basic meaning is "interpretation." They are paraphrases of the Old Testament.
After the Jews were taken into captivity, the Chaldean language took over for Hebrew. Therefore the Jews needed the Scriptures in the spoken language.
The chief Targums are (1) The Targum of Onkelas (60 BC, some say by Onkelas, a disciple of the great Jewish scholar, Hillel). Contains Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. (2) The Targum of Jonathon Ben Uzziel (30 BC?). Contains the historical books and the Prophets.
F. F. Bruce gives more interesting background on the Targums:
"...The practice of accompanying the public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues by an oral paraphrase in the Aramaic vernacular grew up in the closing centuries BC. Naturally, when Hebrew was becoming less and less familiar to the ordinary people as a spoken language, it was necessary that they should be provided with an interpretation of the text of Scripture in a language which they did know, if they were to understand what was read. The official charged with giving this oral paraphrase was called a methurgeman (translator or interpreter) and the paraphrase itself was called a targum.
"...Methurgeman...was not allowed to read his interpretation out of a roll, as the congregation might mistakenly think he was reading the original Scriptures. With a view to accuracy, no doubt, it was further laid down that not more than one verse of the Pentateuch and not more than three verses of the Prophets might be translated at one time.
"In due course these Targums were committed to writing."
What value are the Targums?
J. Anderson in The Bible, the Word of GOD states their value saying: "The great utility of the earlier Targums consists in their vindicating the genuineness of the Hebrew text, by proving that it was the same at the present day."
THE MISHNAH
The meaning is "explanation, teaching." Contains a collection of Jewish traditions and exposition of the oral law. Written in Hebrew and often regarded as the Second Law.
The scriptural quotations are very similar to the Massoretic text and witness to its reliability.
THE GEMARAS (Palestinian AD 200; Babylonian AD 500)
These commentaries (written in Aramaic) that grew up around the Mishnah contribute to the textual reliability of the Massoretic text.
The Mishnah plus the Babylonian Gemara make up the Babylonian Talmud.
Mishnah + Bab. Gemara = Babylonian Talmud
Michnah + Palest. Gemara = Palestinian Talmud
THE MIDRASH (100 BC-AD 300)
This was made up of doctrinal studies of the Old Testament Hebrew text. The Midrash quotations are substantially Massoretic.
THE HEXAPLA (sixfold)
Origen's (AD 185-254) production of a harmony of the Gospels in six columns: texts of the LXX, Aquila, Theodation, Symmachus, Hebrew in Hebrew letters and in Greek letters.
The Hexapla, plus writings of Josephus, Philo and the Zadokite Documents (Dead Sea Qumran community literature), "bear witness to the existence of a text quite similar to the Massoretic [text] from AD 40 to 100."
The Internal Test for Reliability of the Scriptures
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
On this test John Warwick Montgomery writes that literary critics still follow Aristotle's dictum that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."
There, "one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies."
Horn amplifies this, saying: "Think for a moment about what needs to be demonstrated concerning a 'difficulty' in order to transfer it into the category of a valid argument against doctrine. Certainly much more is required than the mere appearance of a contradiction. First, we must be certain that we have correctly understood the passage, the sense in which it uses words or numbers. Second, that we possess all available knowledge in this matter. Third, that no further light can possible be thrown on it by advancing knowledge, textual research, archaeology, etc.
"...Difficulties do not constitute objections, " adds Robert Horn. "Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clearer light; but until such time as we have total and final light on any issue we are in no position to affirm, 'Here is a proven error, an unquestionable objection to an infallible Bible.' It is common knowledge that countless 'objections' have been fully resolved since the century began."
PRIMARY SOURCE VALUE
They wrote as eyewitnesses or from first-hand information:
Luke 1:1-3 - "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus."
II Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."
I John 1:3 - "...What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."
Acts 2:22 - "'Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by GOD with miracles and wonders and signs which GOD performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know...'"
John 19:35 - "And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe."
Luke 3:1 - "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Phillip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene..."
Acts 26:24-26 = "And while Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, 'Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.' But Paul said, 'I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.'"
F. F. Bruce, the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, says, concerning the primary-source value of the New Testament records:
"The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of...first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.
"And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were all conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. This disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
COMPETENT PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL.
The New Testament must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document from the first century.
| CONSERVATIVE DATING | |
| Paul's Letters | AD 50-66 (Hiebert) |
| Matthew | AD 70-80 (Harrison) |
| Mark |
AD 50-60 (Harnak) AD 58-65 (T. W. Manson) |
| Luke | early 60's (Harrison) |
| John | AD 80-100 (Harrison) |
| LIBERAL DATING | |
| Paul's Letters | AD 50-100 (Kummel) |
| Matthew | AD 80-100 (Kummel) |
| Mark | AD 70 (Kummel) |
| Luke | AD 70-90 (Kummel) |
| John |
AD 170 (Baur) AD 90-100 (Kummel) |
Figures on above charts are from the following sources: Werner Georg Kummel's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Howard Clark Kee, Abingdon Press, 1973; Everett Harrison's Introduction to the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971; D. Edmond Hiebert's Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II, Moody Press, 1977; writings and lectures by T. W. Manson and F. C. Baur.
William Foxwell Albright, who was one of the world's foremost biblical archaeologists, said:
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
He reiterates this in an interview for Christianity Today, 18 Jan. 1963: "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century AD (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)."
Albright concludes: "Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be; the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD."
Many of the liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Dr. John A. T. Robinson's conclusions in his new book Redating the New Testament are startlingly radical. His research led to the conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
SUBSTANTIATING AUTHENTICITY
"Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?"
In other words, what sources are there apart from the literature under analysis that substantiate its accuracy, reliability and authenticity?
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL AUTHORS
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History III.39, preserves writings of Papias, the bishop of Heirapolis (130 AD) which Papias got from the Elder (apostle John):
"The Elder used to say this also; 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the LORD; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the LORD. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one things, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.'"
Papias also comments about the Gospel of Matthew: "Matthew recorded the oracles in the Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) tongue."
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 180), who was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna; martyred in 156 AD, had been a Christian for 86 years, and was a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote:
"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own particular doctrine" (Against Heresies III).
The four Gospels had become so axiomatic in the Christian world that Irenaeus can refer to it [fourfold Gospel] as an established and recognized fact as obvious as the four cardinal points of the compass:
"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit.
"Matthew published his Gospel," continues Irenaeus, "among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure (i.e. death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neroian persecution in 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the LORD, who also leaned on His breast (this is a reference to John 13:25 and 21:20), himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
Clement of Rome (ca. AD 95) uses Scripture as being reliable and authentic.
Ignatius (AD 70-110). He was Bishop of Antioch and was martyred for his faith in Christ. He knew all the apostles and was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.
Elgin Moyer in Who Was Who in Church History writes that Ignatius "himself said, I would rather die for Christ than rule the whole earth. Leave me to the beasts that I may by them be partaker of GOD. He is said to have been thrown to the wild beasts in the Colosseum at Rome. His Epistles were written during his journey from Antioch to his martyrdom."
Ignatius gave credence to the Scripture by the way he based his faith on the accuracy of the Bible. He ahd ample material and witnesses to discover scriptural trustworthiness.
Polycarp (AD 70-156) was a disciple of John and succumbed to martyrdom at 86 years of age because of his relentless devotion to Christ and the Scriptures. Polycarp's death demonstrated his trust in the accuracy of the Scripture. "About 155, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, when a local persecution was taking place in Smyrna and several of his members ahd been martyred, he was singled out as the leader of the Church, and marked for martyrdom. When asked to recant and live, he is reputed to have said, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?' He was burned at the stake, dying a heroic martyr for his faith." He certainly had ample contacts to know the truth.
Flavius Josephus - Jewish historian.
The differences between Josephus' account of the baptism of John the Baptist and that of the Gospel is that Josephus says that John's baptism was not for the remission of sin, while the Bible (Mark 1:4) says it was; and that John was killed for political reasons and not for his denunciation of Herod's marriage to Herodias. As Bruce points out, it is quite possible that Herod believed he could kill two birds with one stone by imprisoning John. In regard to the discrepancy over his baptism, Bruce says that the Gospels give a more probably account than Josephus' work and, therefore, more accurate. However, the real point is that the general outline of Josephus' account confirms that of the Gospels.
In Ant. XVIII. 5.2, Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist. Because of the manner in which this passage is written, there is no ground for suspecting Christian interpolation. In this passage we read:
"Now some of the Jews thought that Herod's army had been destroyed by GOD, and that it was a very just penalty to avenge John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had killed him, though he was a good man, who bade the Jews practise virtue, be just one to another and pious toward GOD, and come together in baptism. He taught that baptism was acceptable to GOD provided that they underwent it not to procure remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, if the soul had already been purified by righteousness. And when the others gathered round him (for they were greatly moved when they heard his words), Herod feared that his persuasive power over men, being so great, might lead to a rising, as they seemed ready to follow his counsel in everything. So he thought it much better to seize him and kill him before he caused any tumult, than to have to repent of falling into such trouble later on, after a revolt had taken place. Because of this suspicion of Herod, John was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fortress which we mentioned above, and there put to death. The Jews believed that it was to avenge him that the disaster fell upon the army, GOD wishing to bring evil upon Herod."
Titian (ca. AD 170) organized the Scriptures in order to put them in the first "harmony of the Gospels" called the Diatessaron.
| Home | Site Index | Bible Index |
| Kingdom Dynamics | Truth in Action | Links |
