History of the Bible

In our last study, we discussed the process that led to the formation of the KJV Bible. We explained that it was translated from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, both of which were copies of copies (not translations) of the original texts in their original languages.

I also mentioned that newer versions, such as the NIV, ESV, and others, were not entirely translated from the same texts. Today, I will explain where these versions came from and why it matters.

Before I begin, let me clarify that while On The Line Ministries exclusively uses the KJV, I do not believe it is wise to discount the value of other Bible versions. However, I firmly believe that, in cases of conflict, the KJV should always be considered the authority. You will understand why as we continue.

A Tale of Two Texts

In Unit 1:4c, we explained how the KJV uses the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus as its source for translation. These are copies of copies written in the original languages of the actual texts penned by the Bible’s original authors. They can be traced all the way back to Moses.

The authority of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus as authentic and canonical should not be in question. In fact, considering that the Masoretic Text originated from the scrolls passed down through the priests, Jesus Himself likely used an early version of it.

However, despite this, many modern scholars believe Jesus would not have used the scrolls that would later make up the Masoretic Text. Instead, they suggest He used a different set of texts.

These scholars argue that, instead of the scrolls forming the Masoretic Text, Jesus read from what is called the Septuagint (a Greek translation rather than Hebrew). This belief is based on the idea that the Septuagint was more widely available and easily accessible to the common man during that time.

As we will learn, this is incorrect. Jesus did not use the Septuagint, as many claim.

The Legend of the Septuagint

The belief is that the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars, supposedly representing all 12 tribes of Israel. According to legend, these scholars were commissioned a couple of centuries before Jesus to translate the scriptures into Greek.

This story originates from a document called the Letter of Aristeas. This Greek letter is traditionally dated to the 2nd or 3rd century BC and was allegedly written by Aristeas, an official at the court of Egyptian King Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates.

The letter recounts how Ptolemy II wanted a copy of the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek. He requested the scrolls and invited Jewish scholars to Alexandria to complete the task. The High Priest Eleazar agreed and sent 72 elders (six from each tribe) to translate the scriptures.

According to the letter, they translated the Torah in 72 days. Because of the 72 elders and the 72 days, the text was nicknamed the Septuagint (from the Latin word meaning seventy). It is also known as the LXX (Roman numerals for seventy).

The letter claims that, despite working separately, all the translators produced identical versions of the Torah, suggesting divine inspiration.

Today, the Septuagint serves as the main source for modern translations of the Old Testament. Additionally, translators use what are known as Alexandrian-type texts to translate the New Testament, often choosing texts that align closely with the Septuagint.

Thus, we have two different sets of original texts for our Bibles: the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus for the KJV, and the Septuagint and Alexandrian-type texts for most modern translations.

The Problem with the Septuagint

First, let me clarify that the author of the Letter of Aristeas sought to establish the Septuagint as the authority over any other version of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). In other words, the goal was for this new Greek version to supplant the original Hebrew scriptures.

This motive alone raises suspicion. Why replace the original Hebrew scriptures and any translations based on them unless the Greek version differed in some way?

Additionally, the author’s identity is questionable. Scholars unanimously agree that the author falsely claimed to be Aristeas. This conclusion is supported by numerous inaccuracies in the letter itself.

For instance, the letter speaks of individuals who were already dead at the time as though they were alive and in power. It also alters historical events, claiming victories in battles that were actually losses. The date of the letter’s writing is also disputed, with many believing it was written by a Jewish propagandist.

Bible scholar Bruce Metzger said: “Most scholars who have analyzed the letter have concluded that the author cannot have been the man he represented himself to be but was a Jew who wrote a fictitious account in order to enhance the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures by suggesting that a pagan king had recognized their significance and therefore arranged for their translation into Greek.”

We can conclude that the Letter of Aristeas is a forgery. In fact, the Septuagint may have been written after the time of Jesus and the Apostles. This is likely, given its inclusion of the Apocryphal books (which are not canonical). Some of these books were written after Jesus, providing no reason to believe the Septuagint existed during His time.

Other Greek Translations

To be completely transparent, there are fragments of Greek texts containing scriptures dated to around the 3rd century BC. It is commonly argued that these fragments serve as evidence of the Septuagint’s existence at that time.

However, there is no reason to believe these fragments were considered authentic or accurate.. It is more likely they were unauthorized translations. As we have already mentioned, these were not the scrolls used by the priests.

The Real Septuagint

Origen of Alexandria compiled a parallel Bible around 245 AD, which included six different translations. Among these was the Septuagint, a version that included the Apocryphal books.

Prior to Origen, we do find Greek fragments of scripture. However, these fragments were not used by the priests during the time of Jesus. The priests relied on scrolls that had been passed down through their lineage.

Many believe that Origen translated Hebrew scrolls into Greek himself and called this version the Septuagint. If this is true, it places the creation of the Septuagint around 245 AD—long after Jesus’s time. Thus, Jesus would not have read from the Septuagint.

If the Septuagint did exist before Origen, then those 72 scribes who supposedly translated it would have included the Apocryphal books. However, some of the Apocryphal books are dated to the first century after Jesus. This raises serious doubts about the timeline of the Septuagint’s creation.

It is more likely that the story of the 72 scribes translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek is a fabrication. The only evidence we have of the Septuagint’s existence before Origen’s Hexapla is the fake Letter of Aristeas and a few random Greek fragments. This suggests the story is likely false.

Additionally, since the tribe of Levi was responsible for the scriptures, it is unlikely that any other tribe would have been entrusted with translating them. It would have been unacceptable for the High Priest to appoint translators outside the Levitical priesthood.

Some point to writers like Philo, who mention the Septuagint, as evidence of its existence during Jesus’s time. However, many believe that Philo himself authored the Letter of Aristeas . Remember who the letter was written to? Philocrates. This leaves us with no credible evidence of an authorized Greek translation of the Bible in Jesus’s time.

In short, there is no historical record of the Septuagint predating Origen. Instead, the evidence suggests it came into existence with Origen’s parallel Bible. At the very least, it is clear that the Septuagint was not what Jesus would have used.

Why It Matters

Regardless of its origins, the Septuagint is still a Greek translation of the scriptures and, as such, does indeed contain the word of God. This is one reason why I have no problem recommending modern translations to people who find the KJV difficult to read.

That said, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has demonstrated that the Masoretic Text is almost identical to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), whereas the Septuagint shows more variation.

If the Masoretic Text represents the canon of Hebrew scriptures, then the Septuagint differs in some ways from this canon. This is why I maintain that, in cases of discrepancy, the KJV—coming from the Masoretic Text—should be regarded as the authority in the case of differences.

Nevertheless, it is evident that the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text come from different traditions. The key question is whether they convey the same message. For the most part, they do. However, there are notable differences.

This page was intended to provide a brief history of the two texts used in the translation of the Bible into English. In our next study, we will delve into the differences in their messages and the implications for our understanding of scripture.

Unit 1:11 – Bible Translation Comparison OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God