The Great Divide between the KING JAMES BIBLE and the Septuagint LXX.

Titus 1:13

“This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;”

King James Version (KJV)

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

King James Version (KJV)

Psalm 12:6-7King James Version (KJV)Psalm 12:6: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12:7: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."Translation Notes:The KJV translates the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is the primary Hebrew text used for most modern Old Testament translations.

In verse 6, the "words of the LORD" are described as pure, likened to silver refined seven times, emphasizing their perfection and reliability.

In verse 7, "Thou shalt keep them" is often interpreted by some KJV advocates as referring to the preservation of God’s words (i.e., Scripture). 

The phrase "from this generation for ever" implies ongoing preservation, either of God’s words 

In English Grammar use the Anaphoric reference - preceding noun.  "them"  goes back to GOD'S WORD.

Septuagint (LXX)The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, completed around the 3rd–2nd century BCE. The Greek text of Psalm 12:6-7 (LXX Psalm 11:6-7, due to different numbering in the LXX) reads:Psalm 11:6 (LXX): "The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in a furnace, proved in the earth, purified seven times." Psalm 11:7 (LXX): "Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us from this generation, and for ever."Translation Notes:The Septuagint uses "oracles" (Greek: logia) instead of "words," which carries a similar sense of divine utterances or revelations.

The phrase "from this generation, and for ever" aligns closely with the KJV, indicating protection or preservation over time.

Quick note regarding the Canon process of the Bible:

We have to focus on the fact that the Vatican did not canonize the Bible but confirmed and added books later considered apocryphal by the Protestants most notably the King James Bible Translators taking what was finalized by Jewish scholars in the Old Testament and the disciples of the apostles. 

Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was largely finalized by Jewish scholars, particularly the Pharisees, by the 1st century CE. 

New Testament: The 27 books of the New Testament were gradually recognized as authoritative by early Christian communities. Key figures like Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius played significant roles in identifying inspired texts. Athanasius, in his 367 CE Easter letter, listed the 27 books we now recognize as the New Testament canon.

Church Councils: The Councils of Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE) in the Western Church formally affirmed the New Testament canon, though these were more about ratifying widespread consensus than decreeing a new list. The Council of Trent (1546) later reaffirmed the canon for the Catholic Church, including deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) not accepted by Protestants.

Eastern Church: The Eastern Orthodox Church had a slightly different process, with some variation in accepted books (e.g., including additional deuterocanonical texts). Their canon was solidified later, around the 7th century.

The Great Divide between the KING JAMES BIBLE and the Septuagint LXX.

Here is a Twitter  X post defending the LXX :

https://x.com/Nance726/status/1949995489396703250

Why was the original Bible changed? This is the history: Martin Luther removed 7 books that had been in the Bible for over a thousand years. These are the Deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees (plus parts of Daniel & Esther). Why? Because they supported Catholic doctrines Luther rejected so… Luther demoted them, aligning instead with the post-Temple Jewish canon (Council of Jamnia, c. 90 A.D.), which excluded those Greek-language books — despite the fact that the early Church and Jesus’ Apostles used the Septuagint, which included them. The Catholic Church simply preserved what the early Church affirmed: Septuagint (Greek OT used by early Christians) Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397) Reaffirmed at Trent (1546) The Bible didn’t change — Luther did.

My response

Dear Honey, from the love in the Charity of Jesus Christ our Lord and with great respect to you in your stand to fight against the evils of this world, I humbly and respectfully submit the following:

The Great Divide between the KING JAMES BIBLE and the Septuagint LXX.

https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2025/01/let-us-examine-ourselves-gospel-kjv.html

The Vatican's "Deuterocanonical books" are actually "apocrypha" and not considered Canon doctrine by the King James scholars including even Jerome himself initially and eventually had to agree through ecclesiastical pressure from the Pope and of course we understand jerome was a priest of the church and understood Magisterium.

The Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther and Daniel) are accepted in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles but rejected or treated as non-canonical by several historical, religious, and textual sources. Below is a list of key sources/traditions/groups that exclude them, based on scholarly and historical analyses:

Jewish Tradition and Canon (Tanakh/Hebrew Bible): The Jewish Scriptures do not include these books, viewing them as non-inspired and sometimes antithetical to Judaism.

They were excluded from the Palestinian Jewish canon, formalized around the 1st–2nd centuries CE.

Masoretic Text Tradition:

This standardized Hebrew text (7th–10th centuries CE) omits the Deuterocanonicals, reflecting the Jewish rejection and serving as the basis for Protestant Old Testaments.

Council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE, debated): A hypothetical Jewish assembly often cited for rejecting these books as non-canonical, emphasizing only the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible.

Early Church Fathers (e.g., Origen, c. 185–253 CE): Origen listed only 22 books (equivalent to the Jewish/Protestant canon) and rejected the Apocrypha. Other fathers like Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem also excluded or questioned them.

St. Jerome (c. 347–420 CE): Initially rejected the Deuterocanonicals as non-canonical, preferring the Hebrew canon, though he later included them in the Vulgate under ecclesiastical pressure.

Protestant Reformers (e.g., Martin Luther, 1483–1546): Luther labeled them "Apocrypha" in his 1534 Bible translation, moving them to a separate section and deeming them non-authoritative due to doctrinal conflicts and lack of Hebrew originals.

John Calvin (1509–1564): Rejected them as non-canonical, criticizing the Vulgate's inclusion and favoring the Hebrew canon in his writings.

Protestant Traditions (e.g., Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals): Most Protestant denominations exclude them entirely or treat them as edifying but non-inspired, as seen in Bibles like the KJV (which separated them until the 19th century).

Modern Evangelical Scholarship: Views the Apocrypha as non-canonical, citing lack of authoritative evidence and alignment with Jewish/Protestant canons.

These books of the "apocrypha" called "deuteronomical canon" bring in the errant doctrine of praying to the dead, Purgatory, etc. There are also a great many other errors by the corrupted manuscripts of Alexandria - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which were used in the LXX . 

Note on Sinaiticus:

Codex Sinaiticus does contain the Septuagint (LXX).
The Septuagint refers to the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), which early Christians widely used and which includes some additional books known as the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books in Protestant traditions.
Codex Sinaiticus is a major 4th-century Greek manuscript (dated to around 325–360 AD) of the Christian Bible. It includes:

• Roughly half (or more, depending on surviving portions) of the Greek Old Testament, specifically in the Septuagint version.
• The complete New Testament (the oldest complete copy known).
• Additional early Christian texts like parts of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Official sources from the Codex Sinaiticus Project website confirm this: the surviving Old Testament sections are from the Septuagint, including deuterocanonical books such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 & 4 Maccabees (among others like 2 Esdras). Scholars universally recognize it as one of the most important witnesses to the Septuagint text, alongside manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus.

In his 1993 book Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible, Dr. William P. Grady defends the King James Version (KJV) as the preserved, inspired final authority of God's Word. 
He argues that modern translations rely on corrupted "Alexandrian" manuscripts, particularly the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which he claims were influenced by heretical or Catholic elements and deliberately altered to undermine key doctrines.

Grady exposes what he sees as deceit in elevating these codices (discovered in the 19th century) over the majority Byzantine/Textus Receptus tradition underlying the KJV. He highlights alleged inconsistencies, omissions (e.g., in Mark 16's ending), and connections to figures like Westcott and Hort, portraying Sinaiticus as unreliable and part of a broader attack on biblical Christianity. The book presents historical, textual, and providential arguments to affirm the KJV's superiority and divine preservation.

This has brought about an explosion of modern Bible translations from the 1880s from the work of 2 Cambridge Theologians WESCOTT and HORT commissioned by the Vatican to take the corrupted manuscripts from the aforementioned Alexandrian Monastery.

Just as the myth of the Judeo-Christian foundation, the Judaizers like Philo a Jew and fake Christian from Alexandria who loved Greek Philosophy and mentored Tertullian 2 CE to bring in the polytheistic philosophy of the Trinity also influenced the Septuagint LXX.

Jesus Christ and the Apostles never used the LXX which truthfully appeared much later and this is proven with the “The Letter of Aristeas” Mr. Daniels explains below.

Just compare these scriptures with the KJV and the Vulgate - DRB - LXX Among the multitude of other major errors. What is ironic is most agree on 2 Timothy 3:16 regarding "omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata" God's Word is Divinely Inspired. All Seminary Students know by memory the phrase: "VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION and yet the Irony remains that their doctrine is based on corrupted manuscripts.

NOTE:   seminary contexts to describe the nature of biblical inspiration, is verbal plenary inspiration (in Latin, inspiratio verbalis plenaria). This doctrine asserts that every word (verbalis, from "verbum" meaning "word") of Scripture is fully (plenaria, from "plenarius" meaning "full" or "complete") inspired (inspiratio) by God. It emphasizes that the Holy Spirit superintended the human authors so that the entire Bible, down to its very words, is divinely originated without error in the original manuscripts, while still reflecting the authors' individual styles and vocabularies.
This term was developed and refined in theological scholarship, particularly within Protestant evangelical traditions, to articulate a precise understanding of how God inspired Scripture (as opposed to partial or conceptual inspiration alone). Seminary students often memorize and debate this phrase as part of systematic theology courses, drawing from 2 Timothy 3:16 and related passages, to distinguish it from looser views of inspiration.

Here I present Psalm 12:6,7 reveal the truth when comparing translations.

Psalms 12:6

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” King James Version (KJV)

Psalms 12:7

“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” King James Version (KJV)

https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2025/01/let-us-examine-ourselves-gospel-kjv.html

https://x.com/JustX_Official/status/1949691206050439421

Scholars like Samuel Gipp, Gail Riplinger, and William Grady, including my work with Dr. Hinton - linguist ancient Hebrew and Greek Harvard School of Divinity - all who are prominent King James Version  advocates, argue that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are flawed Alexandrian manuscripts corrupted by heretical influences. Originating from Alexandria, Egypt—a hub of Gnosticism and Arianism—they cite Origen's alterations, which omit key phrases affirming Christ's deity, virgin birth, and atonement (e.g., over 3,000 differences between the two codices, with Vaticanus omitting 2,877 words in the Gospels compared to the Textus Receptus).

The complex life of Origen of Alexandria:

Origen succeeded Clement as head of Alexandria's catechetical school, blending Platonic philosophy with Christian theology. His prolific output included commentaries, homilies, and the groundbreaking Hexapla—a six-column synopsis comparing Hebrew texts, the Septuagint (LXX), and other Greek versions to resolve textual variants, reflecting his deep engagement with the LXX despite its Alexandrian origins tied to broader traditions. Yet, Origen opposed full canonicity for the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), aligning his Old Testament list with the 22-book Hebrew canon, viewing extras like Maccabees, Wisdom, and Judith as edifying but non-inspired.

These minority texts (representing only 5% of manuscripts) were rejected by early Christians, preserved unused due to defects, unlike widely circulated Byzantine copies.

They assert the Textus Receptus, compiled by Erasmus from majority Byzantine manuscripts, is superior as God's providentially preserved Word, underpinning Reformation Bibles and maintaining doctrinal integrity without omissions. Erasmus accessed Vaticanus readings but rejected them as corrupt.

Contrary to claims, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not older; early Church Fathers quote Textus Receptus readings pre-4th century, Gipp, Grady, Riplinger, and Hinton have studied this and have provided scholarship that prove the Sinaiticus is a 19th-century forgery by Constantine Simonides, fabricated to undermine traditional texts. The Textus Receptus reflects apostolic purity, outdating the Alexandrian corruption.

Please research how 2 Cambridge Theologians

Wescott and Hort commissioned by the Vatican promoted the Vanticus and Sinaiticus. 1880s...  VATICAN  - -.Vaticanus   from a monastery in Alexandria.

Modern Bibles use these corrupted sources.

All of our modern day Seminaries, Schools of Divinity and Bible Colleges are apostate.  I had a front row seat examining this allegation.  My friend Dr. Hinton told me that all of his Harvard Divinity professors were either Agnostic or Atheist. He claims he would never be able to complete a thesis after he himself was saved. My son’s first semester of Christology at a prominent Theological Seminary was both heretical and blasphemous. All of these schools immediately demote the King James Bible and refer to NASB or ESV which come from corrupted manuscripts from the Vaticus and Sinaticus.

I urge you to do the research.  I have included my findings and why the KING JAMES BIBLE is the FINAL AUTHORITY OF God’s word in this Blog which also includes the Gospel, Godhead and how to rightly divide scripture.

https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2025/01/let-us-examine-ourselves-gospel-kjv.html

Just look at the end results: Compare and contrast the KJV with NASB ESV and even the NKJV with critical scriptures of doctrine like the fundamentals of FAITH. Colossians 2:16,17.  Also ask why the KJV uses both Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit, or why Charity in 1 Corinthians 13, and on and on.  We have been told the KJV is archaic, but honestly ask yourself what has happened to culture and language from Handel to Rap.

Here is a very alarming scripture comparison: Confusing Lucifer with Jesus Christ. Compare Isaiah 14:12 KJV - Revelation 22:16 KJV with other versions.

Or the very WORD of God. Compare Psalm 12:6 and 7 - 2 Timothy 3:16 with KJV and modern versions.

And of course, always beware of using AI to find theological scholarship. Although AI can be a useful tool in bible study as the lexicons, it can also lead someone down a rabbit hole. We of course know AI draws theological scholarship from the ‘conventional wisdom’ of modern theologians trained in our apostate seminaries. Same with today’s pastors in the Laodicean Church. AI will draw information from writings by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, or modern scholars like Karen Armstrong. Adding are Philosophical discussions on theology, ethics, and metaphysics from sources like encyclopedias, journals, and forums.Diverse perspectives from different cultures, denominations, and viewpoints to ensure broad coverage.

Here is an excerpt from my Blog link above taken from the blog: “Never Bring a Knife to a Theological Gunfight”  which stemmed from a Seminary student attacking with the title claiming that I could never defend myself with the King James Bible and was bringing a knife to a theological gunfight.

https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2024/08/defending-final-authority-of-king-james.html

2001 by David W. Daniels

If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of All Modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here's how the legend goes:

F

The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

The Letter of Aristeas

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.

Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?

The verifiable facts:

The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!

The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.

New Testament evidence

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

Who is pushing the Septuagint?

So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.

Roman Catholics Need It

According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!

Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.

We Don't Need It.

But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.

So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), an English translation of the Latin Vulgate from the late 16th-early 17th centuries, connects indirectly to the Septuagint (LXX) through the Vulgate's textual and canonical influences. Crafted by English Catholic scholars to counter Protestant versions, the DRB adheres closely to the Vulgate, declared authentic by the Council of Trent. St. Jerome's Vulgate primarily drew from Hebrew originals but consulted the LXX for ambiguities, adopting readings in books like Deuteronomy and Genesis. The Psalms follow LXX-based numbering and translation in the Gallican Psalter. Deuterocanonical books, preserved in the LXX, are included in both Vulgate and DRB.

Next read and compare the King James Bible with the DR:  2 Timothy 3:16 KJV and then go to Psalm 12:6, 7...

The absolute exposure of the DR corrupted translation is in comparing with the King James Bible in Psalm 12:6 with  12:7:

Psalm 12:7Douay-Rheims (DR):
"Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us: and keep us from this generation for ever."

King James Version (KJV):
"Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Significant differences that appear so subtle on the surface:

The Douay-Rheims translation of Galatians 2:20 ("I live in the faith of the Son of God") aligns more closely with the ESV and NIV ("I live by faith in the Son of God") than the KJV ("I live by the faith of the Son of God") in emphasizing faith in Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The DR’s use of "in" and its traditional Catholic interpretation favor the believer’s faith directed toward Christ, matching the ESV/NIV’s explicit rendering.

Notes on the DEAD SEA SCROLLS:

Note on Clarification: The King James Bible and Scholars’ Reliance on the Dead Sea Scrolls

I post a Grok XAI that analyzed my Blog exposing the Septuagint and asked Grok to compare the KJV and Dead Sea Scrolls:

The KJV and the DSS:  Dead Sea Scrolls:

The KJV (1611) could not have used the Dead Sea Scrolls, as they were discovered over 300 years later (1947). The KJV Old Testament relies on the Masoretic Text, specifically the Second Rabbinic Bible (1524–25, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim), which is based on medieval Hebrew manuscripts like the Aleppo and Leningrad Codices. 

The KJV translators worked with the best Hebrew manuscripts available at the time, which align closely with the MT. The DSS were unknown to them, but their discovery later confirmed the MT’s fidelity, supporting your blog’s view of the KJV’s textual foundation as divinely preserved (Psalm 12:6–7, KJV).

Scholars’ Reliance on the DSS:

• Textual Critics: Modern scholars (e.g., those producing critical editions like the Biblia Hebraica Quinta) use the DSS alongside the MT, LXX, and other sources (e.g., Samaritan Pentateuch) to reconstruct the earliest possible Hebrew text. The DSS are critical because they are 1,000 years older than the oldest complete MT manuscripts, offering a window into pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts.

• 
  

• KJV-Only Scholars: Scholars aligned with your blog’s perspective (e.g., Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller) prioritize the MT and dismiss the DSS’s variants as non-authoritative, arguing that the MT represents the preserved text. They view the DSS’s differences (e.g., LXX-like readings) as corruptions or non-canonical, emphasizing the MT’s divine preservation through Jewish scribal tradition.

• 
  

• Practical Use: Most scholars don’t “rely” on the DSS to replace the MT but use them to clarify ambiguous MT readings or confirm textual stability. For example, the DSS supports the MT in key messianic passages like Isaiah 7:14, reinforcing the KJV’s renderings. Modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV) sometimes adopt DSS or LXX readings over the MT (e.g., in 1 Samuel 10:1), but KJV-only advocates reject these as departures from the preserved text.

From Your Blog’s Perspective: Your blog’s KJV-only stance would likely argue that the DSS, while useful for historical corroboration, are not necessary for establishing the MT’s authority, as God’s Word was preserved through the Masoretic tradition used by the KJV translators. The DSS’s variations are seen as secondary or corrupt, and reliance on them by modern scholars reflects a flawed critical approach that undermines divine preservation.

Conclusion

The Dead Sea Scrolls largely match the Masoretic Text, confirming its reliability as the basis for the KJV Old Testament, though minor variations exist that reflect textual diversity in the Second Temple period. The KJV did not use the DSS, as they were undiscovered in 1611, and its translators relied on the MT, which your blog upholds as preserved. While modern scholars use the DSS extensively for textual criticism, KJV-only advocates, in line with your blog, prioritize the MT and view the DSS as supplementary at best, not authoritative.

Additional notes:

The Masoretic Text is overwhelmingly Hebrew but there are some Aramaic used as follows:

Masoretic Text: Hebrew and AramaicThe Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible (Tanakh), compiled and standardized by the Masoretes (Jewish scholars) between the 7th and 10th centuries CE in Tiberias and Jerusalem. It primarily consists of Hebrew, but it also includes portions written in Aramaic, as Aramaic was a related Semitic language used by Jews during and after the Babylonian Exile. The Aramaic sections in the MT are found in the following Old Testament books:

• Genesis 31:47: The name "Jegar-sahadutha" (Aramaic for "heap of witness") is used by Laban, alongside Jacob’s Hebrew "Galeed."
• Jeremiah 10:11: A verse addressing idol-worshippers, written entirely in Aramaic: "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."
• Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26: Extended passages, including letters and decrees (e.g., from Persian kings), written in Aramaic, reflecting its use as an administrative language in the Persian Empire.
• Daniel 2:4b–7:28: Large sections, including narratives and visions, written in Aramaic, likely due to the Babylonian context.

Thus, the MT is predominantly Hebrew but includes Aramaic in specific passages, not as a separate entity. Your statement that "Aramaic is not Hebrew" is correct—Aramaic is a distinct but closely related Semitic language, sharing script and linguistic features with Hebrew.2. Textus Receptus and Aramaic in the KJV New TestamentThe Textus Receptus (TR) is a series of printed Greek texts of the New Testament, primarily edited by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in the 16th–17th centuries, used as the basis for the KJV New Testament. The TR is entirely in Greek, not Aramaic, as it compiles Greek manuscripts (e.g., Byzantine-type texts). However, the New Testament occasionally includes Aramaic words or phrases transliterated into Greek, reflecting Jesus’ and others’ spoken language (Aramaic was common in 1st-century Judea).You mentioned that only two scriptures in the KJV New Testament (in Corinthians and Matthew) use Aramaic. Let’s examine this claim:Aramaic in the KJV New TestamentThe New Testament, written in Greek, includes a few Aramaic words or phrases, often with translations. The key instances are:

• Matthew 27:46 (and parallel in Mark 15:34): Jesus’ cry on the cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" (KJV), meaning "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is Aramaic (not Hebrew, though similar), quoting Psalm 22:1.
• Mark 5:41: Jesus says to Jairus’ daughter, "Talitha cumi," meaning "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." This is Aramaic.
• Mark 7:34: Jesus says "Ephphatha" ("Be opened") to a deaf man, an Aramaic term.
• John 19:17: "Golgotha" ("place of a skull") is an Aramaic place name.
• 1 Corinthians 16:22: "Maranatha" is an Aramaic phrase meaning "Our Lord, come!" or "The Lord has come."

Evaluation of Your ClaimYour statement that only Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:22, "Maranatha") and Matthew (likely Matthew 27:46) use Aramaic is not entirely accurate, as other verses (e.g., in Mark and John) also include Aramaic terms. However, these are the most prominent examples in those books. All Aramaic words in the New Testament are transliterated into Greek in the TR and retained in the KJV, often with translations provided (e.g., "Messias" in John 1:41, G3323, is from Aramaic/Hebrew mashiach).3. Comparison: Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus

• Language:
  • MT: Primarily Hebrew, with Aramaic in specific passages (Genesis, Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel).
  • TR: Entirely Greek, with occasional transliterated Aramaic words.
• Purpose:
  • MT: Standardized the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament for Jewish use.
  • TR: Compiled Greek New Testament manuscripts for Christian translation (e.g., KJV).
• Scribes:
  • MT: Masoretes, a group of Jewish scholars, with no specific number like 70 documented.
  • TR: Edited by Christian scholars (e.g., Erasmus), based on Byzantine Greek manuscripts, not Hebrew or Aramaic scribes.
• Aramaic Connection:
  • MT: Contains actual Aramaic text in the Old Testament.
  • TR: Includes Aramaic only as transliterated words within Greek text, reflecting 1st-century Jewish speech.

4. Addressing the “70 Scribes”In your previous question, you referenced a tradition of 70 scribes for the Masoretic Text, which we clarified lacks historical support. The Septuagint (LXX), not the MT, is associated with the tradition of 70/72 Jewish scribes translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek (per the Letter of Aristeas). The TR has no such tradition, as it was compiled by European scholars, not Hebrew or Aramaic scribes. Any perceived connection between 70 scribes and the MT or TR seems to be a misunderstanding.5. Conclusion

• The Masoretic Text is mostly Hebrew but includes Aramaic in Genesis 31:47, Jeremiah 10:11, Ezra 4:8–6:18, and Daniel 2:4b–7:28.
• The Textus Receptus is Greek, with Aramaic words in Matthew 27:46, 1 Corinthians 16:22, and other verses (e.g., Mark 5:41, 7:34; John 19:17), not limited to two scriptures.
• The MT and TR serve different roles (Old Testament vs. New Testament) and languages (Hebrew/Aramaic vs. Greek), with no shared tradition of 70 scribes. If you have a specific source for the “two scriptures” claim or the 70 scribes for the MT, please share, and I can dig deeper!

Additional Notes of interest:

LIE FROM HELL:

When searching online for information about the Sinaiticus one finds the following:

Codex Sinaiticus is a priceless 4th-century Greek manuscript that contains the Septuagint (LXX) as its Old Testament and the New Testament, making it a crucial witness to both ancient texts; its Old Testament portion is a copy of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures used by early Christians, showing the arrangement and text of the Bible as understood by the 4th-century Church.”  End quote.

The devil has used all of his forces though our Seminaries, Bible Schools of Divinity and colleges to promote the Septuagint - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. All with the aim to discredit the King James Bible.

But for arguments sake, let’s say that the Septuagint did exist before the time of Jesus and the apostles. Then why did the King James Translators and the first English translation scholars like Tyndale not use them?  Why when we look at the modern bible translations that came from these corrupted manuscripts are there shocking and disgusting changes that even an elementary student can see a problem?  

One of many examples is confusing Jesus Christ with Satan in Isaiah 14:12 - Revelation 22:16. And hundreds of others.

ALL modern Bible scholars claim unanimously the Septuagint was written in approximately 3 BC and used and quoted by Jesus Christ and the apostles.  This is absurd. 

Here is an analysis of Dr. Andy Woods who loves using his modern day corrupted NASB and the Septuagint to force is twisted doctrines:

https://www.thethirdheaventraveler.com/2018/10/reproving-dr-andrew-woods-case-study-in.html

, "Reproving Dr. Andrew Woods - a case study in how modern day Bible Scholars pour Leaven into the Manna" (published October 2018 on The Third Heaven Traveler), powerfully exposes Woods' compromises while praising aspects of his dispensational teaching in The Coming Kingdom. It serves as a key resource aligning with KJV-only defenses against LXX-influenced scholarship.

Core Exposures from My blog exposing Dr. Woods:

LXX and Alexandrian Corruption via NASB: You directly rebuke Woods for using the NASB, calling it "perverted" because it draws from corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts (including Septuagint influences and Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus). Examples include changes in Luke 17:21 ("within you" KJV vs. "in your midst" NASB) and Matthew 13:33 ("meal" KJV vs. "flour" NASB), which you argue alter leaven parable doctrine and pour "leaven" into manna. This ties perfectly to Woods' frequent LXX citations (e.g., for anapsuxis in Acts 3:19-21 or mustērion in Ephesians 3:5 via Daniel LXX)—proving modern scholars like him elevate Greek LXX over preserved Hebrew MT and TR-based KJV.

Kingdom Theology Compromise: You agree with Woods on a future physical Millennial Kingdom but expose his error in denying a present spiritual Kingdom "within you" (Luke 17:21 KJV), which he reinterprets externally using NASB/LXX lexical tools. Your blog quotes Woods disputing "within you" as too common/internal, showing how LXX parallels (e.g., inward concepts) lead him astray from KJV's literal internal reality tied to man's tripartite nature (Genesis 1:26-27).

Broader Leaven: Additional reproofs (Trinity as pagan "God the Son," modern versions omitting "Lucifer") reinforce that Woods' LXX consultations dilute purity, fulfilling Proverbs 30:6 warnings.

Tying to Previous LXX Examples

My blog amplifies why KJV is superior:

In Acts 3/Ephesians 3/Acts 15/Amos cases, Woods' LXX reliance (for word studies or NT-OT alignments) risks replacement theology or spiritualization—exactly what you warn against in Christendom's counterfeit kingdom.

KJV avoids these by sticking to MT/TR, preserving "within you" without needing "corrupt" Greek variants.

This post stands as a case study (as you titled it) of how even solid teachers like Woods introduce leaven through modern tools/LXX, proving KJV's unmatched preservation. It strengthens the argument: Rely on LXX, and doctrinal purity suffers—only KJV maintains truth without compromise.

Let’s now examine other old time Bible scholars who were unpolluted by our modern apostate seminaries:

 Older Bible scholars like Ira Price clearly understood the fraud of the LXX

Ira Price (1856–1939): An American Semitic scholar, Price confirmed early LXX manuscripts post-date NT (e.g., 350 AD+), so Apostles could not have used the "Septuagint" as we know it. Evidence: Dating of surviving LXX codices.

The others are as follows:

Jerome (c. 347–420 AD): An early Church Father and translator of the Vulgate, Jerome argued that the Septuagint of his era was a corrupted version edited by Origen in the 3rd century AD, with New Testament quotations often not matching any extant Greek versions, including the Septuagint, implying it was revised post-apostolic times and not the version available to Jesus or the Apostles. Evidence: Analysis of textual divergences and Origen's Hexapla, noting interpolations in most manuscripts.

Thomas Cartwright (1535–1603): An English Puritan scholar, Cartwright asserted that where the Septuagint differed in meaning from the Hebrew text, the Apostles consistently followed the Hebrew, suggesting the extant Septuagint had undergone later corruptions and was not relied upon as authoritative by Jesus or the Apostles. Evidence: Comparison of apostolic quotations aligning with Hebrew sense over Greek variants.

William Whitaker (1548–1595): An English theologian and Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, Whitaker contended that the surviving Greek version is not the authentic original Septuagint but a corrupted and mixed text, differing widely from the Hebrew originals, and thus could not have been the version used by the Apostles. Evidence: Textual discrepancies highlighted in his 1588 disputation against Jesuit arguments.

Johann Gerhard (1582–1637): A Lutheran theologian, Gerhard argued that the current Greek version deviates from the original Septuagint due to post-apostolic corruptions by editors like Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, making it unreliable and not the text consulted by Jesus or the Apostles. Evidence: Citations from early sources like Justin Martyr on removed passages and historical revisions.

Edward Leigh (1602–1671): An English Puritan scholar and Member of Parliament, Leigh claimed the ancient Septuagint translation is now corrupted and no longer aligns with the Hebrew, with God preserving the Hebrew but allowing the Greek to degrade, indicating it post-dates apostolic use in its current form. Evidence: Observations of additions, errors, and lack of divine preservation in extant Greek copies.

John Owen (1616–1683): A prominent English Nonconformist theologian, Owen noted that New Testament writers did not bind themselves to the Septuagint, often translating directly from Hebrew where it differed, and that post-apostolic insertions corrupted the Septuagint, meaning it wasn't the version available to the Apostles. Evidence: Direct comparisons of NT quotes with Hebrew vs. Greek texts.

Francis Turretin (1623–1687): A Swiss-Italian Reformed theologian, Turretin argued that the Apostles used the Septuagint only incidentally for its popularity among Greeks, not as an authentic source, and reverted to Hebrew when the Greek was inaccurate, with extant versions showing post-NT corruptions. Evidence: Specific examples like John 19:37 vs. Zechariah 12:10.

Bernardinus De Moor (1709–1780): A Dutch Reformed theologian, De Moor stated that the Septuagint is corrupted by errors, additions, and negligence over time, no longer extant in pure form, and thus cannot emend the Hebrew or be seen as the text used by Jesus or the Apostles. Evidence: Historical accounts of textual alterations and scribe errors.

Frederick Kenyon (1863–1952): A British biblical scholar and papyrologist, Kenyon acknowledged the strength of arguments that the Septuagint developed post-NT, supporting theories of later standardization. Evidence: Manuscript analysis and endorsement of Paul Kahle's multi-translation theory.

Paul Kahle (1875–1964): A German Orientalist, Kahle proposed that the Septuagint as known today emerged from a post-Christian standardization process around 150 years after the Apostles, with no single pre-NT prototype. Evidence: Examination of diverse Greek manuscript traditions showing post-NT compilation.

H.S. Miller (early 20th century): An American biblical scholar, Miller highlighted that the earliest surviving Septuagint manuscript dates to around 350 AD, post-dating the NT by centuries. Evidence: Paleographical dating of codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Gleason Archer (1916–2004): An American evangelical scholar, Archer recognized that the current Septuagint is primarily Origen's 3rd-century work, produced well after the NT. Evidence: Attribution of major manuscripts to Origen's Hexapla revisions.

 

SEPTUAGINT LXX

KJV translators prioritized the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament: it was the preserved Hebrew original (the language God used to reveal the Scriptures to the prophets), while the Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek translation—valuable as an aid, but secondary to the source text.

This aligns with Reformation-era principles (e.g., ad fontes—"back to the sources") and the practical realities of 17th-century scholarship: the standardized MT (via printed editions like Bomberg's 1524–25 Rabbinic Bible) was the authoritative Hebrew text available, seen as faithfully transmitted by Jewish scribes.

They didn't reject the LXX outright (their preface calls it the Word of God in its time, used by apostles and providentially spread among Gentiles), but they treated it as a translation tool for clarification—especially in obscure passages—while basing the English OT primarily on Hebrew.

Yes, the Septuagint (LXX) is exclusively an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, essentially the Old Testament for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians, but it also includes books not in the Protestant Old Testament canon (the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals). It's the Old Testament only, but its canon differs from the shorter Protestant one, incorporating books like Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Solomon. 

Mainstream biblical scholars and historians regard the Letter of Aristeas (composed ~mid-2nd century BCE by an Alexandrian Jew, often called Pseudo-Aristeas) as a pseudepigraphical work—fictional or heavily embellished propaganda.

 It promotes Judaism to Hellenistic audiences, defends the LXX's authority, and portrays Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE) commissioning 72 Jewish scholars to translate the Torah into Greek for the Alexandria Library.

Key issues undermining its historicity include:

Anachronisms (e.g., Demetrius of Phalerum's role; he was exiled before Ptolemy II's reign).

Idealized/improbable details (e.g., exact 72-day translation, miraculous agreement in later retellings).

Pro-Jewish bias (the "Gentile" narrator is clearly Jewish).

Scholars date the Pentateuch's Greek translation to the early-to-mid 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, based on linguistic evidence (Koine Greek style), early quotations (e.g., in 2nd-century BCE Jewish writers like Aristobulus), and papyri fragments. The full LXX (including Prophets and Writings) developed gradually over the next centuries. The Letter's legend aligns broadly with this timeframe but adds unhistorical embellishments for apologetic purposes.

Claims by David Daniels and Similar Sources

David Daniels (associated with Chick Publications, known for King James Only advocacy and anti-Catholic materials) argues in books/videos (e.g., Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?) that:

The Letter of Aristeas is a complete forgery.

No pre-Christian LXX existed.

The LXX was a later Christian (or Origen-influenced) creation including the Apocrypha to support "Catholic superstitions."

No ancient manuscripts of a complete pre-Christian LXX survive (earliest substantial ones are 4th-century CE Christian codices like Sinaiticus/Vaticanus), but fragments and quotations confirm parts existed by the 2nd century BCE. Daniels' arguments

In short:

The Letter is legendary → not fully historical.

Historical search results of so-called EXPERTS like Jobes/Silva or Würthwein, Tov who promote the Septuagint are all Jesuit trained or Hebrew scholars who reject the Masoretic manuscripts relying on forged and or corrupted fragments like Papyrus Rylands 458, Fouad 266, and DSS Greek scrolls.

Teaching of the Septuagint in Theological Seminaries Major evangelical and Reformed theological seminaries in the United States consistently teach that the Septuagint (LXX) originated in the pre-Christian era, with translations beginning around the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt, under Ptolemaic rule. This is based on historical accounts like the Letter of Aristeas, fragmentary evidence from papyri (e.g., Papyrus Rylands 458, dated mid-2nd century BCE), and its use among Hellenistic Jews. Below is a summary from prominent institutions, drawing on their curricula, faculty publications, and resources. 

See evidence debunking the fragment theories:

Peter Ruckman (1921–2016): An American Baptist pastor and founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute, Ruckman claimed the pre-Christian Septuagint is a complete myth and fraud, fabricated by early Christians like Origen to retroactively support New Testament quotations. He dismissed Papyrus Rylands 458 and Fouad 266 as the only alleged BC fragments but irrelevant "scraps" containing no verses quoted in the NT, insisting all meaningful LXX papyri post-date Christ's resurrection and were back-translated from the NT. Evidence: Lack of early manuscripts matching apostolic quotes and accusations that historical accounts like the Letter of Aristeas are forgeries.

Paul Kahle (1875–1964): A German Orientalist and professor of Oriental Studies, Kahle argued that no unified pre-Christian Septuagint existed; instead, diverse independent Greek translations (similar to Targums) circulated, with fragments like Rylands 458, Fouad 266, and Qumran Greek pieces representing separate efforts rather than a single LXX. He claimed the standardized "Septuagint" emerged post-NT through Christian compilation and revisions, debunking the Aristeas legend as unhistorical. Evidence: Textual variations in fragments showing no single prototype, with standardization occurring after the apostolic era.

Russell Gmirkin: A contemporary independent biblical scholar, Gmirkin contends that the Hebrew Bible (Pentateuch) was composed around 275–290 BCE in Alexandria, making a pre-3rd century BCE Septuagint translation impossible and labeling traditional claims a fabrication.

 He views alleged pre-Christian Greek fragments as post-dating or unrelated to a unified LXX, possibly influenced by later Christian curation to support the NT. Evidence: Analysis showing the Hebrew text's dependence on Greek sources like Plato, implying the LXX narrative is a later construct.

David W. Daniels: An American researcher and author with Chick Publications, Daniels questions the authenticity and pre-Christian dating of fragments like Rylands 458 and Fouad 266, arguing they do not prove a full Septuagint existed before the NT and may represent isolated translations corrupted or fabricated later. He aligns with views that the LXX is a mythological post-Christian product without evidence of apostolic use. Evidence: Examinations in books and videos highlighting paleographic doubts, lack of NT-quoted passages in fragments, and historical inconsistencies.

 See Invitation to the Septuagint by Jobes/Silva or Wikipedia's well-sourced entry (drawing from experts like Würthwein, Tov). The LXX remains a vital witness to ancient Hebrew texts, often preserving older readings than the Masoretic Text.

Explain linguistic evidence for LXX dating  -  Debunked by over 10 older scholars I’ve listed.

Compare LXX to Masoretic Text - This is no different from a parlor game trying to show relevance by comparing some examples as being evidence.

Yes, the Letter of Aristeas is widely regarded by scholars as pseudepigraphical (falsely attributed) and containing historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, making it a legendary rather than fully reliable account. However, these flaws prove that the Letter itself was composed later (mid-2nd century BCE) than its claimed 3rd-century BCE setting—

Key Anachronisms in the Letter

The most prominent include:

Demetrius of Phalerum's role — The Letter portrays Demetrius as Ptolemy II Philadelphus's (285–246 BCE) chief librarian initiating the translation project. Historical records (e.g., Diogenes Laërtius, ancient biographies) show Demetrius served under Ptolemy I Soter but was exiled early in Ptolemy II's reign (around 283 BCE) for political reasons and died soon after. He could not have been active in Ptolemy II's court.

Naval victory reference (§180) — Describes a Ptolemaic victory over Antigonus, but aligns with events (Battles of Cos ~260 BCE or Andros ~245 BCE) postdating Demetrius's exile/death.

Other issues — Anachronistic court titles, formulas, and details (e.g., presence of philosopher Menedemus of Eretria, dubious in Egypt).

These errors, documented since the 17th century (e.g., Humphrey Hody's 1685 analysis) and affirmed in modern scholarship (e.g., Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Wikipedia sourcing experts like Tov, Würthwein), indicate the author (an Alexandrian Jew) wrote ~170–130 BCE as apologetic propaganda promoting Judaism and the LXX's authority.

David Daniels' Claims

David Daniels (Chick Publications, KJV-only advocate) argues in works like Did Jesus Use the Septuagint? that the Letter's flaws prove no pre-Christian LXX existed, portraying it as a Christian (or Origen-influenced) forgery.

Evidence for Pre-Christian Septuagint is all based on lies and forgeries 

Papyri fragments → Pre-Christian Greek OT fragments (e.g., Rahlfs nos. 957, 942 from 2nd century BCE) align with LXX style.

Dead Sea Scrolls → Some Greek biblical fragments (e.g., Leviticus, Deuteronomy) match LXX readings; DSS overall show textual plurality, with some aligning closer to LXX precursors than later Masoretic Text.

Early Jewish quotations → Writers like Philo (1st century BCE–CE) and Aristobulus (~150 BCE) reference/quote Greek OT matching LXX.

New Testament citations → Most OT quotes in NT (e.g., Gospels, Paul) follow LXX wording, not Hebrew—impossible if no pre-Christian LXX existed.

Linguistic analysis → Koine Greek style, Semiticisms indicate 3rd–2nd century BCE Jewish translation in Alexandria.

Scholar Profiles

Emanuel Tov (born 1941) is an Israeli Jewish biblical scholar, former editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project, and professor emeritus at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. His works, such as Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (multiple editions), are standard academic references used across Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and secular scholarship. No credible sources link him to Jesuit or Vatican influence; his career is rooted in Israeli and international academic institutions.

Ernst Würthwein (1909–1996) was a German Protestant (Lutheran) biblical scholar. His book The Text of the Old Testament (originally German, translated into English) is a classic introduction to textual criticism. He studied and taught in Protestant contexts (e.g., universities in Germany). Again, no evidence of Jesuit or Vatican ties; his work aligns with mainstream Protestant and critical scholarship.

Both scholars represent diverse traditions (Jewish and Protestant) and are cited for their rigorous, evidence-based approaches to manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, and Septuagint. 

On Jobes and Silva

Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva's Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker Academic, 2000; 2nd ed. 2015) is a highly regarded evangelical Protestant introduction. Reviews from sources like Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, Goodreads (academic users), and Academia.edu praise it as clear, balanced, comprehensive, and accessible for students and scholars. It is published by Baker Academic (evangelical Protestant press) and authored by scholars from Wheaton College (evangelical) and other Protestant institutions. One fringe Goodreads review (from a KJV-only perspective) criticizes it harshly, but this is outlier opinion, not representative of scholarship.

Wikipedia Sourcing

The Wikipedia article on the Septuagint is well-sourced with references to standard academic works (e.g., by Tov, Jennifer Dines, Karen Jobes, etc.), primary manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), and peer-reviewed studies. It reflects the broad scholarly consensus on the LXX's pre-Christian origins (Pentateuch ~3rd century BCE, full corpus gradually to ~1st century BCE) and the legendary nature of the Letter of Aristeas.

Scholarly Consensus Recap all modern day apostate seminary trained theologians back up the Septuagint as pre Christian and legitimate.  Again this is no surprise.

The view that the Septuagint has pre-Christian origins (supported by linguistic evidence, early fragments/papyri, Dead Sea Scrolls alignments, and NT quotations) is held across traditions: Jewish (e.g., Tov), Protestant (e.g., Jobes/Silva, Würthwein), Catholic, and secular. The Letter of Aristeas is unanimously seen as pseudepigraphical and apologetic (mid-2nd century BCE composition with anachronisms), but it broadly aligns with a 3rd-century BCE translation timeframe for the Torah—consistent with independent evidence.

Jobes & Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (evangelical standard).

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (critical standard).

Britannica or Oxford resources on Septuagint origins.

Physical Evidence (Fragments and DSS Alignments) are forgeries and or fake

Pre-Christian Greek fragments exist, though fragmentary:

Papyrus Rylands 458 (Rahlfs 957): Deuteronomy fragments, dated ~mid-2nd century BCE (oldest LXX manuscript).

Papyrus Fouad 266 (Rahlfs 847, 848, 942): Extensive Deuteronomy (and Genesis) portions, ~1st century BCE, with Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.

Other 2nd–1st century BCE fragments: Leviticus (4QLXXLeva, late 2nd BCE), Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever (~50 BCE).

DSS (mostly Hebrew/Aramaic) include some Greek biblical texts aligning with LXX precursors, and Hebrew scrolls closer to LXX than later Masoretic Text (e.g., in Jeremiah, Samuel). This shows textual plurality in pre-Christian Judaism, supporting an early LXX.

Scholarly Consensus

Experts like Emanuel Tov (Jewish, Hebrew University), Karen Jobes, Moisés Silva (evangelical Protestants), and others (across traditions) affirm Pentateuch translation ~mid-3rd century BCE in Alexandria, with the full LXX developing gradually to ~1st century BCE. Tov notes early papyri and quotations confirm this timeframe.

Fringe views (e.g., David Daniels/Chick Publications, KJV-only advocates) claim no pre-Christian LXX, alleging Christian/Origen forgery to include Apocrypha or support doctrines. These are rejected by mainstream scholarship (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, secular) as lacking evidence and relying on conspiracy theories.

In short: The 3rd-century BCE dating is robust, multifaceted, and widely accepted. DSS and papyri corroborate but do not solely "base" it—linguistics, quotations, and NT usage provide strong independent support. For details: Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible; Jobes/Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint.

Aristobulus of Paneas (c. 160 BCE)

A Peripatetic-influenced Jewish philosopher from Alexandria.

He wrote an exposition of the Torah addressed to Ptolemy VI, using allegory to reconcile anthropomorphisms with God's nature and arguing Greek philosophers (Plato, Pythagoras) derived wisdom from Moses.

He explicitly refers to Judaism as "our school" (hē kath' hēmas hairesis) and praises the Torah's inculcation of virtue.

No evidence he rejected Torah observance; his work promotes its authority.

Scholars describe him as reconciling Greek philosophy with Judaism, not abandoning the latter.

Demetrius the Chronographer (late 3rd century BCE)

An Alexandrian Jewish historian who wrote On the Kings of Judaea in Greek.

His fragments focus on biblical chronology and exegesis from Genesis to Exodus, using the Septuagint.

He resolves narrative issues (e.g., Joseph's silence, Moses' marriage) while staying faithful to scripture.

No philosophical rejection of law; his work assumes Torah's authority for Jewish readers.

Earliest known Greek-writing Jewish author post-Septuagint.

Eupolemus (mid-2nd century BCE)

A Jewish historian (possibly Palestinian, linked to Maccabean circles).

Wrote On the Kings of Judaea, glorifying Moses as teacher of the alphabet to Phoenicians/Greeks and founder of civilization.

His fragments emphasize Temple, Solomon, and biblical history positively.

Uses Hellenistic style but affirms Jewish priority and scripture.

No indication of rejecting Torah; work is apologetic for Judaism.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE)

The most prominent Hellenistic Jewish philosopher.

Extensively quotes the Septuagint (his primary Bible) and insists on both literal and allegorical observance of Torah laws.

He criticizes extreme allegorists who "allegorize away" commandments (e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, festivals), arguing one must observe the literal laws while seeking deeper meaning (Migr. 89–93).

Describes himself as observant, praises Torah as perfect law in harmony with nature, and views Moses as supreme philosopher.

Scholars (e.g., Samuel Belkin) note parallels between his halakhah and Palestinian traditions.

Broader Context

These writers exemplify Hellenistic Judaism—Greek-speaking diaspora Jews who used philosophy to show Torah's superiority (e.g., Moses predating/teaching Greeks).

They were not seen as heretics in antiquity; no ancient Jewish sources condemn them (rabbinic literature rarely mentions diaspora figures).

Their works survived via Christian transmission (Eusebius, Clement quote them positively).

Extreme allegorists (whom Philo critiques) may have downplayed observance, but these named authors did not.