Septuagint

Before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, many early Christian writings were circulating among believers, and some of these writings were later included in the New Testament. However, the full New Testament canon was not formally established until later, though much of it was already widely recognized and used by early Christian communities. Several of the books of the New Testament can indeed be compiled or at least partially reconstructed from early letters and documents exchanged between believers prior to Nicaea.

A large portion of the New Testament (some scholars say as much as 90%)—especially the Gospels and Pauline Epistles—could be compiled from the early letters exchanged between believers and writings before Nicaea, though the formal process of canonization continued afterward.

You misunderstood the meaning of my question. When they used only the Alexandrian Greek to replace the New Testament, why didn't they do the same for the Old Testament?

You still haven't given me a source for the Septuagint. How do I find it to read it? Or doesn't it exist today?

The Orthodox Church claims it can be written from their liturgy from the beginning.

That’s well and good. If it can be proven with viable evidence, even better. My statement is based on verifiable writings.

Quotations in the New Testament: Many quotations from the Old Testament found in
the New Testament align more closely with the Septuagint than with the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
This suggests that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint.
For example, in Romans 3:10-18, Paul’s quotations reflect the LXX.

Language and Audience: The Septuagint was the primary version of the Old Testament
for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians. Since many of the early Christians were
Gentiles or Hellenistic Jews, it makes sense that they would use a Greek translation of
the scriptures.

Early Church Fathers: Writings from the early church fathers, such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine,
show that the Septuagint was widely used in the early church. Jerome’s "Vulgate" and his commentaries
indicate awareness of the Septuagint, as he often compared it with the Hebrew text.

Patristic References: Many early Christian writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries reference the
Septuagint directly. For instance, quotes in the works of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus often mirror
the Septuagint.

Council of Laodicea: This council (4th century) confirmed the authority of the Septuagint, indicating
its acceptance in the early church.

The Greek translation was the only version of the Old Testament that Gentiles and Jews could read.

Very few people in Israel could read Hebrew they mostly spoke Greek and read Greek.

I have been asking if there is a copy of this Septuagint that you have been referring to, or does it no longer exist?

Google it.

OK I will google it.

I googled it, and this is what I found.

Septuagint is a Latin word, and not a Greek word. Isn’t that strange?

We presently have no manuscript that contains the Septuagint.

For a couple hundred years they were putting forth the Codex Vaticanus 1209 as the Septuagint. The following was offered by Wikipedia.

Before the 19th century, no scholar was allowed to study or edit the Codex Vaticanus, and scholars did not ascribe any value to it; in fact, it was suspected to have been interpolated by the Latin textual tradition.[4] John Mill wrote in his Prolegomena (1707): "in Occidentalium gratiam a Latino scriba exaratum" (written by a Latin scribe for the western world). He did not believe there was value to having a collation for the manuscript.

Bentley was stirred by Mill's claim of 30,000 variants in the New Testament and he wanted to reconstruct the text of the New Testament in its early form.

He therefore required a collation from Vaticanus. The text of the collation was irreconcilable with Codex Alexandrinus and he abandoned the project.[49]

Alfred Rahlfs' edition of the Septuagint. Alfred Rahlfs, a Septuagint researcher at the University of Göttingen, began a manual edition of the Septuagint in 1917 or 1918. The completed Septuaginta, published in 1935, relies mainly on the Vaticanus,

I again googled Septuagint and came up with NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint by Oxford University Press. They said, “To The Reader of NETS,”

--there is a wide-ranging diversity and heterogeneity within the collection—to the point that some scholars now question the continued use of the word “Septuagint,”

--NETS has bowed to the weight of tradition and has thus continued the use of the term Septuagint.

So then I googled the Orthodox Church Bible. The Orthodox Church says their liturgy was built on the Septuagint. That sounds good, until they tell you the Septuagint that their liturgy is based on is not the codex Vaticanus.

In the middle of the last century, “modern” Scripture scholars, or critics, determined that newly-“discovered” ancient texts — such as the Codex Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian Codex, the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus — dating from the fourth through the sixth centuries, had determining authority in establishing the original text of the Gospels and the words of the Lord.

Criticism was leveled against these critics by other scholars who maintained that the older manuscripts had been preserved through the ages precisely because they were set aside and unused since they were inferior copies — obvious from the ineptitude of the hands that wrote them and the many misspellings.

They argued that it was hardly logical to prefer inferior texts from one text family over the received Byzantine texts were in agreement. Furthermore, they noted that the received text has even more ancient parallels — in second century Syriac and Latin versions — and is widely quoted in the Fathers.

Even papyrus fragments from the first century bear out the veracity of the Byzantine text, and refute the validity of the older texts.

Amazingly – indeed, even unbelievably – most modern translators work from an “eclectic” or “critical text, which draws very heavily from the older Codices. This eclectic text is a patchwork of readings from the various manuscripts which differ from each other and from the Byzantine text.

Any Greek Orthodox Christian can take a copy of the Nestle-Aland critical (eclectic) text into church, and compare the Epistles with those in the Apostolos – they differ, often, radically, in hundreds of places, not only in words and word order, but also in tenses and meanings!

Most Modern English Bible Translations are Based on Bogus Versions of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, no English translation of the Bible has been made using the Byzantine text-type manuscripts of the New Testament since the King James Version (KJV) in 1611. The others are all based on the eclectic Greek New Testament manuscripts and various Hebrew Old Testament texts.

The bottom line is that manuscripts which the Orthodox Church did not use or copy have been elevated above those texts which the Church has preserved by modern and contemporary Scripture scholars and translators.

Modern Translations Obscure the Divinity of Christ. In what can only be a return to the ancient heresy of Arius, even the much touted 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation of Scripture tends to minimize Christ’s divine nature.

Forty years ago the King James translation was widely impugned for being based on the Greek Byzantine texts which were called corrupt – an amazing accusation considering the pedigree of the eclectic critical texts.

In the liberal theological milieu of that time, many Protestant theologians denied not only the virgin birth, but also the divinity of Christ and His resurrection.

What Translation Should I Use? The answer is this: the King James Version (KJV) is the most reliable and faithful English translation, Unfortunately, it is written in an archaic, 500 year old style of English. Although not as incomprehensible as the 2000 year old Greek of the New Testament and Liturgy is to modern Greek speakers, it is still awkward and difficult for many to understand.

(Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17).

NO.

The 1/5 of 1%, relates to all aspects of the various texts which have something to do with doctrinal foundations but would include all doctrinal subjects. Such as Theology, Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology... etc. but does not relate to any one doctrine specifically.

As to the Deity of Christ - there are way to many verses, composed of many agreeing copies, most without even a hint of variance in the Greek, which would prove Christ's Deity.

I agree that the Deity of Christ has not been removed from our Bible, but is it acceptable that 10 verses regarding the Deity of Christ have been removed, or even five?

There is a lack of knowledge of the Unitarian movement in the 19th Century, and the desire to alter the reading of our bibles.

1n 1831 The British and foreign bible society made a split. The following statement is the declared reason.

"Matters came to a head at the BFBS Annual Meeting held in May 1831, where the Annual Report included a recommendation that oral prayer should not be included at meetings of the Society for fear of offending Unitarians if the name of Christ has used. This caused a great deal of unrest and concern, and the outcome was the formation of a new society, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) on 7 December 1831 in London."

Unitarianism - Wikipedia

Unitarian Henry Ware (1764–1845) was appointed as the Hollis professor of divinity at Harvard College, in 1805. Harvard Divinity School then shifted from its conservative roots to teach Unitarian theology (see Harvard and Unitarianism).

Harvard University, including Harvard Divinity School, developed a strong connection to the Unitarian movement in America beginning in the early nineteenth century. These ties are reflected in the richness of Unitarian Universalist resources across the Harvard Library. To explore even more of what Harvard has to offer, use--------------.

Harvard University provided at least two Unitarians for the American Revision.

Ezra Abbot was a Unitarian Harvard Professor who taught Caspar Rene Gregory, while Gregory was at Harvard. Ezra was on the ASV translation committee.

Caspar Rene Gregory studied with Tischendorf and finished his works after Tischendorf’s death. He gave the system of the P designations of the papyri for Identification. He was a Unitarian. He was taught at Harvard by Ezra Abbot.

Joseph Henry Thayer was another Harvard Professor who was a Unitarian. He also was on the ASV translation committee. He was the editor of the N T on the committee.

John Fenton Hort said, TO The REV. DR. LIGHTFOOT, ST John's Mount, Brecon, S. Wales, September 1st, 1880.

"- - - -It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit."

The Unitarian was John Fenton Hort, who wrote a 51-page booklet on how the Revision affected doctrine.

How they removed the word atonement. How they changed master to teacher, and how they changed power to authority. Here is his statement on 1 John 5:7--"The Revision it will be observed, has achieved the distinction of adding a new verse to the Bible---that is to say, it has taken the latter part of the Authorised verse 6, and made it count as Revised verse 7. To balance this, the Authorised verse 7 is quietly dropped out of the text, not a word being said about it. Such is the ignominious end of this famous verse---the only verse in the Bible in which the doctrine of the Trinity was stated, and was no doubt intended to be stated."

Vance said, "it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ."

I made an error in the name of the Unitarian. It George Vance Smith and not John Fenton Hort who was the Unitarian.

It's all good.

I wish to address your statement about a new verse being added to the Bible in 1 John 5:6,7. To begin with, verse numbers are assigned by men, to make finding these locations easier for the reader. The original autographs had no such separation. Whether something is in one verse number are the other, makes no real difference. In this particular case, a part of the text that was in verse 6 (KJV), was moved to a verse numbered 7, in many other translations. (Ex. American Standard Bible, Revised Version, etc...). No harm, no foul.

HOWEVER, let's look at some variants that do matter in 1 John 5:

There is no significant variant in 1 John 5:5

There is variance in 1 John 5:6 - as to whether or not it should read "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ the son of God" However, the oldest manuscripts do not include this addition and most variant studies reject it. Additionally, this proclamation, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, was already proclaimed in verse 5 and would seem out of the writers style to include it here in verse 6. Neither the Textus Receptus nor the Nestle support it.

Also, in verse 6, the Nestle Greek text, restores the text translated "And it is the Spirit bearing witness, because the Spirit is the truth." as part of verse 6 and not the renumbered verse 7.

That brings us to the highly controversial verse 7, included in the King James Version.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The variant reading in 1 John 5:7 refers to the differing textual traditions found in manuscripts and translations of this verse. The most notable variant is the inclusion or omission of the “Johannine Comma” (also known as the Comma Johanneum), which reads:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This phrase is found in some Latin manuscripts and early Christian writings, but not in any Greek manuscripts prior to the 14th century. The majority of Greek manuscripts, including the earliest and most reliable ones, lack this phrase. The earliest and best witnesses, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain the Johannine Comma. Other Greek manuscripts that lack this phrase include: Minuscules 61, 629, 918, 2318, and 2473

Only eight manuscripts contain the passage, and four of these have it as a marginal reading, indicating it may be a later addition. The earliest manuscripts, such as Codex Vaticanus (4th century), do not include this phrase. The majority of Greek manuscripts (over 500) support a different reading. It was included in the Textus Receptus but rejected in the Nestle Greek Text because the oldest manuscripts (200 A.D.), do not include it. Most variant scholars believe it to be a Latin addition and more of an "INTERPOLATION" than a genuine literal copy.

The Reformers, including John Gill, considered 1 John 5:7 to be part of the original text, but their manuscripts may have been influenced by later additions. John Gill had this to say in his commentary: "The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one."

So which is it? I don't truly know. I note the controversy. Nevertheless, other verses of Holy Scripture, clearly teach that God is a Trinity.

As I stated before, don't get yourself hung up on the variances and there possible causes. God's Word is preserved to accomplish it's purpose. Of this there is no doubt.

God be with you.

Do you understand the context of what George Vance Smith was saying? He was bragging about removing 1 John 5:7. He denies the Deity of Christ. That was his purpose for removing it. He is one of the translators of your Bible.

The facts do not support your statement that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.

Before the 19th century, no scholar was allowed to study or edit the Codex Vaticanus, and scholars did not ascribe any value to it; in fact, it was suspected to have been interpolated by the Latin textual tradition.[4] John Mill wrote in his Prolegomena (1707): "in Occidentalium gratiam a Latino scriba exaratum" (written by a Latin scribe for the western world). He did not believe there was value to having a collation for the manuscript.

Bentley was stirred by Mill's claim of 30,000 variants in the New Testament and he wanted to reconstruct the text of the New Testament in its early form.

He therefore required a collation from Vaticanus. The text of the collation was irreconcilable with Codex Alexandrinus and he abandoned the project.[49]

I have a book in my possession, under the heading "Religion and Philosophy" titled INTRODUCTORY LECTURES TO THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY John-David Michaelis. Originally published in 1750, then later in 1780 printed for William Dawson.

Under section XXI the heading The Codex Vaticanus we read, Lucas Burgensis one of the learned me who assisted in the publication of the Biblia Regia at Antwerp, gives an extract of the readings of this manuscript, in his note in S. Biblia, quibus variantia discrepantibus examplarbus loco discutiuntir, Antwerp, 1580.

"The Vatican edition of the Septuagint is taken from this manuscript. It is greatly to be lamented that by length of time the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Pastoral Epistles, and the Revelation of St. John, have been lost. The other books as so decayed that it has been found necessary to draw fresh ink over the letters; but the manuscript in its present state has lost much of its credit by this, the persons employed in the work having sometimes not confined themselves to the old letters, but placed other in their room." 1580

I feel confident that the Codex Sinaiticus is a nineteenth century manuscript translated through dictation, having been copied from the Codex Vaticanus.

The worst translation available is enough to bring a soul to Christ. It is the Spirit which gives life. I think many of us in Christendom come very close to worshipping the book over its author. The word of God is living and powerful, and not constrained by all the enemies attempts to twist it or water it down. There are eight or nine translations on my bookshelf, and the Septuagint, and several other Greek texts. I have no desire to learn Hebrew, and no its not because I hate the Jews. I use to look down on the KJV only crowd, but no longer. I still prefer the Geneva, but I get where they are coming from. In the end, unless you are a Greek or Hebrew scholar (I am not) you are at the mercy of these translations, good or bad. Thankfully, we have not been left without a Guide.

What responsibility do we, as Christians, have to that which God has given us in the written word of God? Does God expect us to lay our heads in the sand and accept whatever anyone tells us. You don't have to understand Greek or Hebrew for we don't know for sure what language the books of the New Testament were originally written in. When someone rewrites the bible and it brings confusion and chaos that should be a clue that Satan is at work.

Ask yourself, what was the purpose for rewriting the Bible. The men involved did not believe in the Deity of Christ or the Genesis account of creation.

Ask yourself who furthered the work of the revisionists? It was, at first, NA/UBS, and later just UBS who controlled what was in the Greek. The UBS "United Bible Societies" made five revisions of what was, in their opinion, the original Greek words. This is the material that revisionists were to use in their English revisions. The five revisions of the Greek occurred in 66, 68, 75, 93, and 2014 Who were the five members of this committee?

One was Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzer wrote Reader's Digest-Condensed Bible. Bruce removed 40% of the Bible including Revelation 22:18-19. His number one protégé was Bart Ehrman with whom he wrote a number of books. Bart is a leading agnostic writer, having written three college books. He has produced more than 30 books.

Bruce Metzger, along with Herbert May, edited THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE in 1971.

Here is what was said in INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out a matrix of myth, legend, and history, appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form.

Another of the Five was Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini a liberal Jesuit who won the first round of voting to become Pope in 2005. Pope Benedict the XVI eventually became Pope in a later round of voting.

You're preaching to the choir bro.
Lots of good info there. But the bottom line is, WE are the only bible most non believers will ever read. If we can lead them to Christ, His spirit will do the rest in the obedient and faithful heart.