QUESTION:  What is the LXX?
   
ANSWER:  A figment of someone's imagination.
   
EXPLANATION:  First, let's define what the LXX, also known as the 
"Septuagint," is supposed to be.  An ancient document called "The 
Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of 
the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek.  This translation was 
to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace 
the Hebrew Bible.  Supposedly this translation work would be performed 
by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of 
Israel.  The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, 
Egypt.  The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, 
during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament 
in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a 
four-year error in the calendar).
   
It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 
Elders." Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose 
combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10.  Why it isn't called the 
LXXII I'll never know.
   
This so-called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the 
existence of this mystical document.  There are absolutely NO Greek 
Old Testament manuscripts in existence with a date of 250 BC or 
anywhere near it.  Neither is there any record in Jewish history of 
such a work being contemplated or performed.
   
When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a 
document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 
200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly 
penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed.  
The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 
Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including 
spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon," "Judith" and "Tobit" and 
other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman 
Catholic Church.
   
Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't 
translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the 
second column of his Hexapla.  Can this argument be correct?  No.  If 
it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars 
added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever 
written.  (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious 
writings to God's Holy Word (Rev.  22:18).
   
Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's 
personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and 
nothing more.
   
Eucebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a 
Greek Pentateuch.  Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned 
as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
   
Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the 
time of Christ?  Yes.  There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the 
Ryland's Papyrus, #458.  It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28.  No 
more.  No less.  In fact, it may be the existence of this fragment 
that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had 
been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in 
the history of the Jews.  It most certainly cannot be a portion of any 
pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek.  We can rest 
assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work 
in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
   
Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation 
was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas," 
Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eucebius and Philo just cannot 
clear.
   
The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself.  There is little 
doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named 
Aristeas.  In fact, some believe its true author is Philo.  This would 
give it an A.D.  date.  If this were true, then its REAL intention 
would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second 
column is a copy of the LXX--a feat that it has apparently 
accomplished "in spades."
   
If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable 
problems.
   
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his 
six representative scholars from each.  Having been thoroughly 
scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of 
the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence.  It 
was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual 
tribes.
   
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have 
undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
   
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the 
tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 
2:7.  Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join 
such a forbidden enterprise.
   
(2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be 
distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them.  Unto them 
was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, 
sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland.  Added to this is the 
heritage of the Hebrew language.  Even today, practicing Jews in China 
and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew.  The 
Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their 
country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language 
as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
   
Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered 
Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their 
heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would 
be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible?  Such a 
supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
   
"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New 
Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX 
they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's 
Hexapla.  The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or 
the Hexapla.  They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty 
of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes.  
And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-
existent Septuagint.
   
Only one more question arises.  Then why are scholars so quick to 
accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable 
arguments against it?  The answer is sad and simple.
   
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn.  It takes years of 
study to attain a passing knowledge of it, and many more to be well 
enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study.  By comparison a 
working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable.  Thus, IF THERE WAS 
an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics 
could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking 
study of biblical Hebrew.  Unfortunately, the acceptance of the 
existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on 
pride and voracity.
   
But stop and think.  Even if such a spurious document as the LXX 
really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the 
King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the 
original language," and claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has 
equal authority with the Hebrew "original"?  This scholarly double-
talk is nothing more than a self-exalting authority striving to keep 
his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original 
languages."
   
If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in 
Brooklyn!

../