Under His Wings

William Orcutt Cushing wrote “Under His Wings” in 1896. He was born in Massachusetts in 1823, a son of Jacob Cushing and Martha Orcutt. He married Hena Jane Proper in 1854. He died October 19, 1902. He and Hena are buried at the Jones Cemetery at Hector, Schuyler County, New York. He served as pastor at the Christian Church in Searsburg, New York, as well as other locations in New York (some sources say he was a Unitarian minister). He lost his voice and retired from pastoring after 27 years. He is author of about 300 hymns. Three scripture verses that influenced this hymn of gratefulness and assurance are:

• Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings. (Psalm 17:8) 
• I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah. (Psalm 61:4)
• He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. (Psalm 91:4) 

Ira David Sankey, a music evangelist who worked with D. L. Moody, wrote the music, which combined with the hymn was published in Sacred Songs in 1896. It is said that it was once so popular the Bible school in Northfield, Massachusetts that students sang it every day in chapel. The tune is called Hingham, after Cushing’s place of birth.

1. Under his wings I am safely abiding;
Though the night deepens and tempests are wild,
Still I can trust him; I know he will keep me;
He has redeemed me, and I am his child.

Refrain:
Under his wings, under his wings,
Who from his love can sever?
Under his wings my soul shall abide,
Safely abide forever.

2. Under his wings, what a refuge in sorrow!
How the heart yearningly turns to its rest!
Often when earth has no balm for my healing,
There I find comfort, and there I am blest.

 3. Under his wings, O what precious enjoyment!
There will I hide till life’s trials are o’er;
Sheltered, protected, no evil can harm me;
Resting in Jesus I’m safe ever more.

3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing, and other music links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• 3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing -- “Following is a report of 3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing, held at Campbell’s Cross Roads, Clay county, Ala., July 18th, 1926.”
• All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name! - Edward Perronet -- “This hymn’s popularity is evident because it appears in many hymnals with three different tunes.”
• Benson Collection of Hymnals and Hymnology -- “A list of links to books in the Benson Collection.”
• Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated -- “So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks?”
• Kardia Music -- “Kardia Music Theory Resources and Courses.”
• Little Is Much When God Is in It - Kittie Suffield -- “The place of service may seem insignificant, but ‘it is great if God is in it.’”
• McGough Family Documents -- “Shown below are two portions of John McGough’s son-in-law’s (Perry Nelson) 1818 song book.”
  
• Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven, by Henry Francis Lyte -- “Published in 1834, ‘Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven’ was inspired by Psalm 103. The opening stanza reflects on the first five verses of the Psalm.”
• Reformation Hymns -- “‘Bar form’ was a common musical form that was nurtured in the Church. It is a form consisting of two identical musical lines followed by a contrasting section: AAB. Many of Luther’s hymns, like ‘A Might Fortress,’ are written in this form, which has nothing to do with taverns.”
• Sacred Harp Sing Returns to Baylor University Joining Voices in Four-Part Harmony -- “Human voices come together without instruments or rehearsal...is returning to Baylor University after a two-year hiatus.”
• Silent Night! Holy Night! - Josef Mohr -- “Just before Christmas in 1818, in the small village of Oberndorf, Austria, it was discovered the church’s organ was broken.”
• Singing the Psalms -- “Since the largest book in the Bible is a songbook, we see the importance of sacred music before God.”
• Strings Attached -- “David Getman was working in a music store in Brooklyn, New York, in 1997 when a friend gave him a box of banjo parts. The friend suggested that he see what he could make with the pieces.”
• The Christian’s song, written by a young lady: together with a hymn called Love to Christ -- “The claim on the broadside that the song was ‘written by a young lady’ applies to the second song on this sheet, ‘Love to Christ.’”

LXX or Septuagint: New Testament Comparison

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I posted LXX or Septuagint: Scattered Thoughts and LXX or Septuagint: Thoughts of John Owen. Today I follow up with a further consideration about comparing New Testament references to the LXX (Septuagint). How should we consider and determine whether New Testament authors were quoting or referring to statements in the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew Old Testament?

A fairly common tact from representatives on “my side” (defenders of the Traditional Texts and the King James Version) is to claim that no Greek Old Testament yet existed, and therefore the New Testament authors could not have quoted from it. While it may be true that no official complete Greek Old Testament existed, it seems that there nevertheless were Greek translations of parts of the Old Testament.[i] Even someone as radical as Peter Ruckman acknowledged the existence of two papyrus fragments that predated the New Testament times. It seems to me, from what I have been to find, that the general LXX scholarship recognizes about ten extant manuscripts (papyrus fragments) that are from BC (Before Christ).

For the sake of argument, I will accept the dating of these extant manuscripts as reliable. However, most of the opposition are “matching” New Testament readings to the LXX by inspecting LXX manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) that postdate the New Testament by several hundred years. This is chronologically challenged and raises the question whether these texts accurately represent Greek translations of the Old Testament that existed before the New Testament. The case can be made that portions of these manuscripts were edited to match the New Testament. The Vaticanus text of Psalm 13/14 is one of the more egregious examples. I posit that the most reliable way to test this is to compare New Testament quotations with Greek LXX readings believed to exist before the New Testament was written. A full inspection, I believe, should consider these four questions.

1. What level of agreement must a NT quote/reference have with the LXX to be considered a quote from the LXX? (Thanks to Dwayne Green)
2. Can quotes/references be found in the NT with this level of agreement with the LXX?
3. Can any quotes/references with this level of agreement be found in manuscripts that predate the writing of the NT, or only in manuscripts that postdate the writing of the NT (or both)?
4. Is there more than one explanation in regard to the quote/reference, and, if so, which explanation best answers the facts?

For this post, I have sort of skipped forward just to see whether this can be tested. This is done as an experiment and needs more intense and careful work to be the most useful. However, perhaps I can at least demonstrate what I think should be done. The list of pre-BC manuscripts I compiled are these (using Rahlfs numbering):

• 801-805 are fragments of, respectively, Leviticus 26:2–16; Leviticus 1:11, 2:3–6:5; Numbers 3:39–4:16; Baruch 6:43–44; Exodus 28:4–7.
• 819 is a fragment of Deuteronomy 11:4. 
• 847 is fragments of Deuteronomy 10:22; 11:1, 10,11, 16; 31:26–19; 32:2,4; 33:14–19, 22–23, 26–27.
• 848 is fragments of Deuteronomy 17:14 to 33:29. (847, 848, and 942 = Fouad 266)
• 942 is fragments of Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–38:1; 38:10–12. 
• 957 is fragments of Deuteronomy 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12; 26:17–19; 28:31–33; 27:15; 28:2.

For the NT quotes/references to the LXX, I used a list of about 70 verses that I found HERE.[ii] Again, this needs to be more fully and carefully investigated. As I went through their list and the list of extant LXX manuscripts, I found only one verse on both lists – Deuteronomy 10:22. Their argument is that Stephen says 75 people went down to Egypt (based on the LXX) and the Hebrew says 70 people. That Stephen said this, in itself, is correct. Whether he did so based on the LXX is the question. In Acts 7:14 Stephen “Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, Genesis 46:27 has “threescore and ten” and Deuteronomy 10:22 has “threescore and ten persons.” The modern LXX has “seventy-five souls” (ἑβδομηκονταπέντε, Genesis) and “seventy souls” (ἑβδομήκοντα, Deuteronomy). Some debaters assert that the statement made by Stephen in Acts 7:14 about “75 souls” is based on the LXX reading.

I had hoped to inspect the Fouad 266 reading (supposed to be 1st century BC) of Deuteronomy 10:22. This papyrus is housed at the Societé Royale de Papyrologie in Cairo, Egypt.[iii] However, I have yet to discover a scan of it online. References to and discussion of this manuscript that I have found online focus on the use of the tetragrammaton and show no interest in “75 souls.”

This “test case” turned out to not be a very good one – especially because I could not find the fragment to compare whether it mentions 75 or 70, but also:

• The LXX texts of Genesis 46:27 and Deuteronomy 10:22, at least as we now know them, disagree on the number.
• It is not clear that Stephen is even quoting or referencing a specific Old Testament text.
• There are other explanations for the statement in Acts 7:14 other than Stephen quoting the LXX.[iv] 

Even though this test case turned out to be deficient in needed areas, I hope that this illustrates how we could compare the NT to LXX in a manner of what actually existed that they might have referenced, rather than just looking at LXX manuscripts that postdate the New Testament, whose text could have been edited to conform to the NT reading. Is this a legitimate way to proceed? Are there other New Testament quotes/references that can be found in the manuscripts that are supposed to date BC?

---

[i] Paul Kahle is one Semitic scholar who distrusts the common view of a complete and official Greek Old Testament commonly accepted by Greek-speaking Jews. A overview of the opinions of Kahle can be seen HERE.

[ii] I do not claim this list is the best or most complete available. Their comparison of John 12:38 to Isaiah 53:1 falls flat. For example, the KJV translation based on the Masoretic Hebrew text and the TR yields the same reading, report. Though many modern translations do use “message,” this seems to merely be a translation choice rather than a difference in the base text. Nevertheless, for the time being, it is the best and most complete list that I have found via Google search.
[iii] Apparently, it can be viewed at the Trismegistos portal from institutions with a subscription. I am unsure whether it might be accessed elsewhere on the World Wide Web. Also being a fragment, it might not even contain the relevant number (70 or 75).
[iv] 75 Souls - Acts 7:14.

LXX or Septuagint: Paul E. Kahle

Since I mentioned him in a post on Tuesday, and will again in a post later today, I thought I would give this excerpt from Matthew Black on Paul E. Kahle and the LXX. He was a scholar of high reputation who held a minority view on the origin of the LXX. (I am not saying his view syncs with mine, but that his viewpoint represents a strong and important minority voice on the subject.)

“…according to Kahle’s theory the LXX had its origins in the synagogues of the Diaspora as a kind of Greek Targum. He was later to defend this theory in a number of publications and in controversy with many scholars.” p. 488

“Kahle’s contribution to our understanding of the origins and history of the ancient versions has been an equally significant one. The most widely controverted of his theories in this connexion is his account of the origin and development of the Greek Old Testament. He remained to the end a resolute defender of his original theory and an opponent of the Lagardian hypothesis of an original Urtext of the LXX, on which, for instance, the Rahlf’s edition is based. The Aristeas legend was, according to Kahle, a piece of first-century Jewish propaganda in favour of an authorized Alexandrian revision of existing Greek versions of the Torah. The history of the LXX did not differ fundamentally from that of the Aramaic Targums: Greek translations were made in different areas to accompany the reading of the Hebrew text, and the various geographical areas (Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor) had each their own officially authorized version. The standard LXX text, covering the entire Bible, was the outcome of the Church’s need for an official, uniform Greek text of the Old Testament. The New Testament quotations, many of which differ substantially from the LXX, reflected, in Kahle’s opinion, differences in Greek versions associated with different geographical areas.” p. 491

From “Paul Ernest Kahle 1875-1965,” by Matthew Black, Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume LI, London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Or see a PDF HERE.

Disquiet regarding the Gentile reception of the word of God, Acts 11

Contending against Gentile conversion, 1-3

Verse 1: The word “that the Gentiles had also received the word of God” traveled faster to “the apostles and brethren that were in Judæa” than Peter traveled to Jerusalem. Some saw in the Gentiles receiving the word a bypassing of circumcision and the law.[i]

 

Verse 2: Upon Peter’s arrival “they that were of the circumcision” disputed with Peter concerning his going in to the Gentiles and preaching to them. “They that were of the circumcision” here in Jerusalem are not the same as the six “they of the circumcision” of 10:45, who traveled with Peter from Joppa to Cæsarea.[ii] Those six were astonished and agreed with Peter. These in Jerusalem complained and contended against Peter. If Peter were “Pope,” they would not have aggressively questioned his actions.

 

Verse 3: The chief concern expressed by the naysayers is that Peter “wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” Interestingly, Peter “wentest in” and “didst eat” with the Gentiles before the confirmatory gift of the Holy Ghost – based on the explanatory vision from God.

 

Verse 1 shows the occasion for Peter’s defense, verse 2 the charge against him, and verse 3 the rebuttal of the charge made in his defense.

 

Peter defends the decision of preaching to the Gentiles, 4-17

 

Verse 4: Peter goes over the incident thoroughly, from beginning to end, from his standpoint. He is gentle, patient, and humble (cf. II Timothy 2:24ff.). Luke began with the vision of Cornelius. Peter, not there in Cæsarea when Cornelius received a vision, begins with the vision he received. Acts chapters 10 and 11 tells the story thrice – (1) from God’s point of view, 10:1-23; (2) Cornelius’s point of view, 10:30-33; and (3) Peter’s point of view, 11:5-16.

 

Verses 5-10: These verses restate the vision of Peter, first recorded in Acts 10:9-16. For verse 6 “fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air” compare Acts 10:12 and Psalm 148:10. The record and retelling of the vision represent two levels of meaning in it: (1) physical/food, and (2) spiritual/fellowship.

 

Verses 11-12b: These verses summarize Acts 10:19-23, with the added detail of the number of men who accompanied him to Cæsarea – six. In 10:23, they are identified as “certain brethren from Joppa” without a number given. “these six brethren accompanied me” suggests that they are also present as witnesses at this meeting in Jerusalem.[iii]

 

Verses 12c-14: These verses relate to Acts 10:24-33, Peter entering into “the man’s house” and conversing with him. Peter interprets his mission as telling these Gentiles “words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Salvation is here connected to the word of God. Compare Ephesians 1:13 “in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” John Gill insists these words “would be a means of instructing him and his family in the right and true way of salvation.”[iv]

 

In the retelling of the story, Peter does not mention Cornelius’s name. He is a representative Gentile in a principle that God establishes. Bock writes, “It makes the story one of principle. The issue is not Cornelius, but what Cornelius represents: a Gentile saved directly by the act of God.”[v]

 

This event in Cæsarea at the house of Cornelius is often referred to as “the Pentecost of the Gentiles.”[vi]

 

Verses 15-16: Peter only briefly mentions his own speaking, and focuses on the confirmation worked by God. God initiated the fall of the Holy Ghost on them, and he did it before Peter has finished speaking. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” Peter’s defense indicates the Pentecost event was historical and unique, not an ongoing event. If what happened on Pentecost had been a common daily, weekly, or monthly occurrence, Peter would not have had to go all the way back to Pentecost – possibly 8 to 10 years past – to find a referent in common with what happened at Cornelius’s house. Peter does not say, “the Holy Ghost fell on them, as has been happening to us all along through these past eight or so years.” As Israel was baptized unto Moses as a once for all event, so was Christ’s church baptized once for all. “Israel did not take each generation back to the Red Sea to be baptized. Neither has any true New Testament Church had to wait for a Pentecost from on high, and ever afterwards the power has been available to true churches which are commissioned to go and not to wait again for a Pentecostal enduement.”[vii]

 

Verse 17: Peter places the “blame” squarely where it belongs – on God! “what was I, that I could withstand God?” If any brethren wish to contend with Peter, the preaching to, salvation of, and fellowship with the Gentiles – then they must contend with God.

 

The Jerusalem church accepts and acknowledges the work of God, 18

Verse 18: For the time, they no longer dispute. They hear and acquiesce to the testimony of Peter – glorifying God. The church recognized that “God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

---

[i] “…it was more than likely this full membership aspect that caused the greatest offense to the Jews. Cornelius was accepted into the visible church by baptism and confession of faith and not by becoming a Jew outwardly (Romans 2:28-29).” Derek Carlsen, Faith and Courage, pp. 271-272.
[ii] “They that were of the circumcision. This phrase marks the beginning of evil and separation in the Apostolic Church. The words had previously been used to denote all Jewish Christians, but now they seem to refer to one party among the Jewish believers, to the Judaizers who were unable to believe that Gentiles could enter the church save through Judaism.” Lindsay, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 123.
[iii] If he is pointing to six men present with him, this opens the possibility that more than six went.
[iv] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-11-14.html  “…though Cornelius was really a pious man, and therefore in the way of salvation, yet he had not been instructed in the peculiar principles on which God bestows pardon and eternal life.” Ripley, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 157.
[v] Bock, Acts, p. 408.
[vi] This phrase goes back at least before the 1700s in the French theologian Pasquier Quesnel, circa 1692. “This is, as it were the Pentecost of the Gentiles, the beginning of the accomplishment of the promises in respect of us, and our first entrance into the body of Jesus Christ.” See The New Testament, with Moral Reflections Upon Every Verse, Translated from the French of P. Quesnel, by Richard Russell, Volume 3, London: R. and J. Bonwicke, 1725, p. 132.
[vii] Roy Culley, The Holy Spirit, pp. 96-97.

LXX or Septuagint: Thoughts of John Owen

Some extremists, perhaps due to their angry wailing, bitter spirit, and sometimes unfounded animadversions, have made any hint of uncertainty concerning the LXX to be anathema to the “scholars” – especially the wanna-be (think-they-are) scholars. This should not be. All who think there is likelihood of versions of the Greek Old Testament created in early church history do not belong on the quack list. Consider the words of John Owen (1616-1683), who is generally respected in Reformed and Western evangelical circles (at least when he is not writing too dogmatically about the Bible).

“Hence some, not understanding whence this testimony was cited by the apostle, have inserted his words into the Greek Bible…” p. 107

“14. First, it is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth, in very few of them agree exactly with the Greek version of the Old Testament that is now extant,—though apparently, since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity unto the allegations as reported in the New; and in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth. 

“15. It is also undeniably manifest, from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original or any translation whatever,—if any other translation, or targum, were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used with great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by who inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave unto him, without the least prejudice unto truth of the faith of the church... pp. 113-114

“19. I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterward inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be further confirmed; for,—

“20. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text.” 

“Exercitation V. Testimonies Cited By the Apostle Out of the Old Testament,” An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume I, John Owen (W. H. Gould, editor), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 113-115.

Commenting on “I regarded them not” in Hebrews 8:9, Owen writes:

“But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein. It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX. in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed; but how they came to render בָּעַ֥לְתִּי by ἠμέλησα, they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought they might read, as some think, ָּבָּחֱלְתִּי, ‘neglexi,’ or נְעַ֥לְתִּי, ‘fastidivi,’—‘I neglected,’ or ‘loathed them.’ And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy which the LXX. made use of, had one of these words instead of בָּעַ֥לְתִּי, which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong to the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.

“But the best of these conjectures are uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that translation. He expressed the mind of the Scripture, as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of these words with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been accounted for in our Exercitations.

Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in the original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. That is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture.

An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume VI, John Owen (1616-1683), (W. H. Gould, editor),Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 130.

John Owen was no dufus. If I am reading him correctly, he believed the extant LXX words of the 4th & 5th century manuscripts did not necessarily predate the writing of the New Testament (therefore could have been conformed to match the New Testament).

LXX or Septuagint: Scattered thoughts

The LXX and Septuagint are names for Greek versions (translations) of the Hebrew Old Testament. Ryan Reeves offers what might be considered a “typical” Western Evangelical view of the LXX: 

“The Septuagint is quite possibly the most important translation of the Bible. It is the oldest translation of the OT into another language...most of the direct citations of the OT in the NT match the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible (or Masoretic Text [MT]).”

Many, if not most, Western evangelicals believe that a somewhat “official” Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament harks back to the 3rd-century B.C. Reeves recognizes, however, that there is no such thing as the Septuagint, but that what is available are rather eclectic critical texts (e.g. Brenton, Rahlfs) that attempt to reconstruct what they believe was the original Greek Old Testament, using the extant Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.

On the other extreme are those who believe that the LXX or Septuagint is a Christian-era development – that is, no LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) existed before perhaps the 1st-century A.D. 

Frank Welte, a writer at Hope for Israel Ministries, a radical and heretical (denying the deity of Jesus) Hebrew Roots movement, says:

“So the only LXX we have today stands exposed as a corrupt forgery!”[i]

Several “King James Onlyists” agree with this view of the LXX, without holding the other odd and heretical views of Hope for Israel Ministries – which ministries is not a KJVO group. Welte also states that, “A translation from the original text CANNOT possibly be better than the original.”

Samuel C. Gipp represents a view held by some King James Onlyists. In “Was There a BC Septuagint,” he asks and answers:

“QUESTION: What is the LXX?

“ANSWER: A figment of someone’s imagination.”

Doubtless many KJVOs are influenced on this point by Peter Ruckman. In 1996, he published The Mythological Septuagint. In it he rails against an early LXX, but also admits to two B.C. fragments, writing:

“Ryland Papyrus 458 and Fouad 266 are the only ‘B.C.’ fragments found in 2,400 years of babbling about a B.C. LXX which ‘the apostles quoted’: none of them quoted Rylands 458 or Fouad 266. (The Mythological Septuagint, Peter S. Ruckman. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1996, p. 55.)

Earlier in The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1970, pp. 48-51), he only mentioned the Ryland fragment as early. I think that Ruckman is correct that there are no New Testament quotes from anything in the Rylands fragment (but there might be one to consider in the Fouad fragment).

As best I can find, in general scholars seem to think there are about 10 fragments of part of Greek Old Testament translation that predate the time of Christ. LXX scholar Alfred Rahlfs (1865-1935) system identifies and numbers 10 manuscripts that are believed to be from the centuries before Christ. In his numbering system these are older manuscripts: 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 819 (4Q LXXDeut), 847, 848, 942 (Fouad 266), and 957 (Rylands 458). 801-805 are fragments of, respectively, Leviticus 26:2–16; Leviticus 1:11, 2:3–6:5; Numbers 3:39–4:16; Baruch 6:43–44; Exodus 28:4–7. 819 is a fragment of Deuteronomy 11:4. 847 is fragments of Deuteronomy 10:22; 11:1, 10,11, 16; 31:26–19; 32:2,4; 33:14–19, 22–23, 26–27. 848 is fragments of Deuteronomy 17:14 to 33:29. 942 is fragments of Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–38:1; 38:10–12. 957 is fragments of Deuteronomy 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12; 26:17–19; 28:31–33; 27:15; 28:2. The manuscripts are paleographically dated (i.e., by analysis of the writing), the oldest being Rylands 458 (2nd century BC) and Fouad 266 (1st century BC).[ii] I have not checked to see whether anything that can be read on these scraps of papyri varies from the Hebrew Old Testament and have been quoted in the New Testament, though I do not expect it.

The complete and almost complete manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Old Testament are from the 4th and 5th centuries (Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus).[iii] They did not exist as such at the time the New Testament books were written. I have shown in an earlier post that the Vaticanus LXX corrupts Psalm 14 by adding into it verses that Paul quoted in Romans 3 from various books of the Bible.[iv]

In between the extremes stands those who suspect that some books of the Old Testament (especially that Pentateuch) were translated before the time of Jesus Christ, while recognizing that the current full manuscripts are at best edited versions of earlier translations. I will look at the comments of one important Reformed scholar tomorrow (John Owen). Today I conclude with some comments about the view of Paul Ernst Kahle (1875-1964). Paul Kahle was certainly no King James Bible man, and likely not even conservative. He was a German scholar of Semitic philology, Near Eastern and Far Eastern cultures and languages (an “orientalist”) who edited later editions (1937, et al.) of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. He was a high-class scholar whose view on the LXX is out of step with other high-class scholars and many wanna-be scholars. I could not find his original, but take these comments from John Reumann:

“One of the most intriguing theories is that of the late Professor Paul Kahle, a renowned Semitics scholar (1875-1964), who argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria. Kahle claimed that there were no ‘official’ translation undertakings in Judaism such as Aristeas suggests, but rather a number of local attempts—in Alexandria, in Ephesus, in any town with a sizable group of Greek-speaking Jews. These translations naturally differed in quality, and there was no standardization. But about 130 B. C., the theory continues, Jews in Alexandria revised the competing ragged renderings which were circulating in their area of Egypt, and put out a sort of ‘Revised Standard Version,’ intended to be the norm thereafter. The Letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity. Hence also the curse on anyone who would change a word of it. But even this attempt at standardization, Kahle thought, did not bring order from the chaos. Different Greek renderings continued to circulate. And so, when Christians (who increasingly after the year A.D. 50 were Greeks who knew little or no Hebrew) employed the Old Testament, they inevitably borrowed from the varied Jewish Greek translations—the Pentateuch as it had been revised at Alexandria, the book of Daniel as it had been translated at Ephesus, and so forth, until they put together an Old Testament in Greek, complete now, which they called the ‘Septuagint,’ after the title from the Aristeas legend. On this reading of the evidence, the LXX is a Christian compilation, and The Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further the use of a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C.” (The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars: Chapters in the History of Bible Transmission and Translation, John H. P. Reumann. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 15-16.)

Kahle’s view is interesting, and could account for some of the early fragments, while recognizing that the LXX as it currently stands is a revision from early Christian times. Whether any LXX existed before Christ or not, or whether any New Testament writer quoted from such (if he did), is of no great consequence to me. If God chose to inspire a writer to quote (or say the same way) as some previous translator, that is God’s prerogative to do, and mine to accept. However, I think most claims of NT quotes from the LXX relate to what is found in the 4th-century manuscripts, which could have been edited to match the New Testament (Psalm 14:3 certainly was). Let’s see what John Owen has to say on the morrow.

---

[i] The Septuagint – Is It a Fraud or Forgery? by Frank W. Nelte.
[ii] For the sake of discussion, I accept the papyri dating as likely reasonably accurate.
[iii] I realize there is a vocal, and perhaps large, element within King James Onlyism who believe Sinaiticus is a late forgery. I leave this for others to argue about. It is a bad manuscript, whether it is from the 4th century or was forged by Constantine Simonides.
[iv] This is one of the more egregious examples of meddling with the Old Testament translation. In commenting on Psalm 14:3, John Gill writes, “Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13-18; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses, and these are they, ‘Their throat,’ &c.” When he comments on Romans 3:13-18, Gill takes no notice of the LXX, but rather shows where the verses are quoted from in the Old Testament (Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1).

The Crystalline Fountain

“The sacred Scriptures are the Crystalline Fountaine, from whence all the lucid streams, and Rivulets of pure Religion are derived and conducted into the Cisterns and Receptacles of the hearts and understandings of Christians; whereby they may be directed, and instructed to lead a gracious and holy life here, and prepared for, and assured of a glorious and eternal life hereafter.”

William Kilbourne, in Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles, 1660

Room for Rebels

The English dissenter and hymnist Isaac Watts (1674-1748) wrote “None excluded from hope,” which appeared in The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts (1719) as “Hymn 34 Part 2.” It has 6 stanzas in common meter. Watts tied these hymn thoughts especially to two texts of scripture, Romans 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 1:24. Salvation is to all them that are called, to everyone who believes, whether Jew or Greek.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24

Though reprinted in a number of words-only hymn books, it seems to have not been that popular of a choice in tune books. In fact, the Hymnary.org has only one printing of “None excluded from hope” paired with music on their site. It is No. 307 in the Hymn and Tune Book of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South placed under the tune Sawley by James Walch (1837-1901).

Since the hymn is not “emotionally attached” to any particular tune, I would suggest choosing some fine old tune such as Detroit, Mear, or Ortonville. Pisgah is a great serviceable tune for almost any common meter hymn. Find a tune and sing it!

None excluded from hope. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:24.

1. Jesus, thy blessings are not few,
Nor is thy gospel weak;
Thy grace can melt the stubborn Jew,
And bow th’ aspiring Greek.

2. Wide as the reach of Satan’s rage
Doth thy salvation flow;
’Tis not confined to sex or age,
The lofty or the low.

3. While grace is offered to the prince,
The poor may take their share;
No mortal has a just pretense
To perish in despair.

4. Be wise, ye men of strength and wit,
Nor boast your native powers;
But to his sovereign grace submit,
And glory shall be yours.

5. Come, all ye vilest sinners, come,
He’ll form your souls anew;
His gospel and his heart have room
For rebels such as you.

6. His doctrine is almighty love;
There’s virtue in his name
To turn the raven to a dove,
The lion to a lamb.

Dr. Fauci’s Two-Day Testimony, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Wenstrup Releases Statement Following Dr. Fauci’s Two-Day Testimony -- “During his interview today, Dr. Fauci claimed that the policies and mandates he promoted may unfortunately increase vaccine hesitancy for years to come.”
• The Sweetest Family -- “The people of Lufkin know that a bit of Willy Wonka magic dwells in their midst, but few outsiders know of its existence.”
• The AKJV - Our National Inheritance -- “The present English Bible (Authorized Version) has been blessed to thousands of the saints of GOD; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance.”
• Strings Attached -- “David Getman was working in a music store in Brooklyn, New York, in 1997 when a friend gave him a box of banjo parts. The friend suggested that he see what he could make with the pieces.”
• Siloam Presbyterian, Organized 1903, Greene County -- “Siloam Presbyterian was constituted in 1903 by the charter members of what was previously called Hastings Church.”
• Self-Proclaimed ‘Ecosexual’ Takes Nature Loving to the Next Level, Says She’s in Relationship with Tree -- “Semyonova is perpetuating an increasingly common and pervasive misconception about love in our modern world...and...the United States, and indeed most of the Western world, is facing an epidemic of loneliness.”
• One of the Most Remarkable Features of Early Christian Manuscripts -- “The nomina sacra are remarkably early and widespread. In fact, so dominant are the nomina sacra that we can hardly find a Christian manuscript without them.”
• Newly Digitized Bible Reveals the Origins of the King James Version -- “The Bodleian Library has given open access to this interesting annotated Bible, but remember it is still of undetermined provenance.”
• John 13.14-15, Gilbert Beebe -- “We have more delicacy in attempting to repeat our views on this than on other portions of the word because we are conscious that some of our most highly esteemed brethren differ in their understanding of it.”
• Gravestone recipes so good that they are set in stone -- “When a recipe is important enough to living family members that they want it preserved on a tombstone, it must have been absolutely delicious!”
• Gary L. Pinkerton, Texas History -- “Since he first learned that a rut across his family land was the route of a historic road to early Texas, Gary’s passion for research and writing about the history of East Texas has resulted in the publication of two works of history.”
• Dreaming Big -- “There was no actual memo, of course. But indeed, several people in the same corner of Texas had a similar idea around the same time.”
• Do your ancestors have a mail-order tombstone from Sears? -- “In 1902, Sears, Roebuck & Co. Tombstones and Monuments Catalog was published with prices for a moderate tombstone ranging from $4.88 to $40.”
• Carmel Baptist Church, org. 1835, Newton County -- “In 1851, Carmel Baptist united with nearby Liberty Baptist Church (founded c. 1815) and a more centrally located site was selected for a new church building.”
• Calvinism and Arminianism: Myths and Realities -- “What is often misunderstood is that Calvinism and Arminianism do not represent two opposing positions, as ifthey are the only choices on the table. Instead, in the debate over how saving grace works, there is a spectrum of orthodox positions...”
• Bodleian Library 1602 Bishops Bible “Arch. A b.18” -- “Annotations appear in parts of the Old and New Testaments, which some believe reflect the work-in-progress of some of the King James translating companies.”

An independent variety of the Textus Receptus

In his work The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills referred to the Authorized (King James) Bible as “an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”

“The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”

The Response to Peter’s Sermon

The crowd’s response to Peter’s sermon at Cornelius’s house, 44-48

Verse 44: Peter’s sermon remains unfinished – in human terms – because God finished it. While Peter was still speaking, “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” The gift did not come through laying on of hands as at other times (Acts 8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6; I Timothy 4:14) but “as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15; cf. Acts 2).

 

Verse 45: “And they of the circumcision which believed [Peter and the men who came with him] were astonished” (εξιστημι, astonished, amazed, astounded). Compare to the similar reaction in a similar circumstance recorded in Acts 2:7, 12. For more on tongues, see HERE.

 

Verse 46: For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. The tongues at Cornelius house were like the tongues on the day of Pentecost – human languages not previously learned by the speakers. Cf. “also” in v. 45 and “for” in v. 46; and also see Acts 15:15 “as on us at the beginning” and 15:17 “the like gift.”

 

Verses 47-48: The Spirit acted independently upon the Gentiles, and the actions of the church are dependent on the act of God. After seeking the thoughts of the six fellow brethren who accompanied him (“Can any man forbid water,” etc.), and no objections forthcoming, he commands the new believers at Cæsarea to obey their first duty to their Lord – “be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Baptism is not optional. It is a commandment, and “a divinely appointed token of our believing in Christ.”[i] Peter invoked the baptism of John in his preaching (v. 37), and remembered the baptism of John in the Lord’s promise (11:16).

 

“Water” here, the element, stands for the rite of baptism. John Gill writes:

 

“…then the sense is, who can forbid these persons the ordinance of baptism, or deny the administration of it to them? for such who have the Spirit of Christ, are openly Christ’s, and therefore have a right to his ordinances; such, being enlightened by him, are able to see to the end of the ordinance; and to such only can it be of use, and they only can please God in it: nor should it be forbidden them; this is to withstand God, act contrary to the commission of Christ, and resist the Holy Ghost; no, not though Gentiles: converted Gentiles, have as good a right as any to this ordinance…”[ii]

 

For more on baptism, see HERE.

 

“Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Prior to God’s revelation to Peter, recorded in verses 9-16, he could not have tarried with these Gentiles. This tarrying with them implies not only spiritual fellowship, but also table fellowship – eating with the Gentiles.  Compare Galatians 2:11-13.

Of this event, Bock recaps:

 

In sum, God directs an epoch-making event in which Gentiles are accepted in fellowship and receive the gospel. Their faith leads them to the gift of the Spirit, the sign that the new era has arrived.[iii]

 

Acts chapter 10 exhibits the divine work of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God the Father initiates the ingathering of the Gentiles. The preaching of Jesus Christ, God the Son, gathers in the Gentiles. God the Holy Ghost confirms the work on the Gentiles.

---

[i] Ripley, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 156.
[ii] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/ Gill believes the framing of question also alludes to immersion.
[iii] Bock, Acts, p. 401.