LXX: More John Owen

John Owen comments on Hebrews 11:6 and the LXX (Septuagint).

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

“Many of the antients, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Euthymius, Procopius, and Anselm, conceive the words to be cited from Deut. 32. 42. where they expressly occur in the Translation of the LXX. Εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· Rejoyce ye Heavens with him, and let all the Angels of God worship him. But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretentions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX. 

“1. Because indeed there are no such words in the Original Text; nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole Verse is inserted in the Greek version quite besides the scope of the place. Now though it may perhaps be safely granted, that the Apostles in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament, did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use, yea, though not exact according to the Original, whilst the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost was retained in them; yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word, and testimony of God, which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by god, but by humane failure and corruption crept into the Greek Version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question, but that this addition to the Greek Text in that place, was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For it is not unlikely, but that some considering of it, and not considering from whence it was taken, because the words occur not absolutely and exactly in the Greek any where, inserted it into that place of Moses, amidst other words of an alike found, and somewhat an alike importance; such as immediately precede and follow the clause inserted.

“2. The Holy Ghost is not treating in that place about the Introduction of the Firstborn into the world, but quite another matter, as is evidently not taken from this place; nor would, nor could the Apostle make use of a testimony liable unto such just exceptions.

Later expositors generally agree, that the words are taken out of Psal. 97. v. 7. where the Original is rendred by the LXX, προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ; which with a very small variation in the words, and none at all in the sense, is here expressed by the Apostle, And let all the Angels of God worship him... 

“But the matter of the Psalm it self makes it manifest that the Holy Ghost treateth in it about God’s bringing in the first-born into the world, and the setting up of his Kingdom in him. A Kingdom is described, wherein God would reign, which should destroy Idolatry and false-worship; a Kingdom wherein the Isles of the Gentiles should rejoyce, being called to an interest therein; a Kingdom that was to be preached, proclaimed, to the encrease of Light and Holiness in the world, with the manifestation of the glory of God unto the ends of the earth. Every part whereof declareth the Kingdom of Christ to be intended in the Psalm, and consequently that it is a Prophesie of the bringing in of the first-begotten into the world.” Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, John Owen, 1668, pp. 94-95.

• And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
• ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην λέγει και προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ
• Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
• Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels.
• αἰσχυνθήτωσαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς, οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν· προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ, πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ.

A modern revised and abridged version of the comments of Owen:

“Many of the ancients conceive the words to be cited from Deut. xxxii. 42. where they expressly occur in the Sept. translation: but there are no such words in the original text; nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole verse is inserted in the Greek version quite besides the scope of the place. And indeed I no way question, but that this addition to the Greek text was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For some officious person, not considering from whence it was taken, because the words do not occur exactly in the Greek, it is not unlikely inserted it there amidst other words of an alike sound. But later expositors generally agree, that the words are taken out of Psalm xcvii. 7. where the original is rendered by the Sept. with a very small variation in the words, and none at all in the sense. And the matter of the Psalm makes it manifest, that the Holy Ghost treats in it about God’s ‘bringing in the first-begotten into the world,’ and the setting up of his kingdom by him. A kingdom is described wherein God would reign, which should destroy idolatry and false worship; a kingdom wherein the isles of the Gentiles should rejoice, being called to an interest therein; a kingdom that was to be preached, proclaimed, to the increase of light and holiness in the world, with the manifestation of the glory of God to the ends of the earth. Each part declares the kingdom of Christ to be intended in the Psalm, and consequently that it is a prophecy of the ‘bringing in of the first-begotten into the world.’”

Proper pronunciation

How important to biblical scholarship is the proper pronunciation of Greek words?

In the linked video, Mark Ward, John Meade, and Will Ross give a “response” to the sessions of the first meeting Reformation Bible Society. In a complaint about the scholarship, Will Ross (starting at about 13:51) says there were problems with “even basic things like mispronounced words that would be common to people who work in more detail with Septuagint scholarship.” Is this a legitimate complaint, or more a closing of ranks, “You’re not a scholar if you don’t pronounce Greek words like I do”? How well do we really know that everyone across the Roman empire pronounced Koine Greek the same way? I notice that Englishmen, even those in the same country, have a wide range of pronunciations which does not amount to ignorance, but may properly be ascribed to accent. I notice even Mark, John, and Will do not have the same accent. Starting about 47:01 Mark and Will refer to Peter Van Kleeck’s paper on Augustine. Mark calls him “uh-guhs-tin” which I perceive to be popular in academic circles. Will calls him “aw-guh-steen” (for which he gets high points for speaking a little drawl-like, as we talk here in East Texas!). Maybe one or both of them are not well-schooled in their historical scholarship. Or, more likely, they just speak differently. But is not this the pots calling kettles black? Physicians, heal yourselves before you scold others.

I hear and read in the Bible version debates a lot of things from both sides that I believe are petty and lacking in substance. They distract from the substance of the arguments. I see such pettiness in their pronunciation complaint. The more I hear British English on TV, in lectures, videos, and such like, the less I believe there is one proper pronunciation of most English words. Even the Brits do not have one pronunciation shared among themselves. And neither do we.

Mark likes to say that others in the Bible version debates are offensive, but I find their raising themselves up on the backs of others to be offensive.

• Also interesting, the rejoinder by Jeff Riddle to Meade, Ross, and Ward.

Andrew Willet on the LXX

As for the Greeke translations of the old Testament, of them all the translation of the Septuagint was of greatest account; who are said to have beene put apart in 72. celles, and to have all agreed in their translation: But S. Hierome holdeth this to be a fable, of the 72. celles, the ruines whereof a long time after were shewed at Alexandria, seeing that neither Aristaeus, who was a chiefe man about King Ptolomie, that set 70. interpreters on worke, nor Josephus maketh any mention thereof. And as touching the interpreters themselves, hee saith, Aliud est vatem agere, aliud interpretem: It is one thing to be a Prophet, another to bee an interpreter. And as for the translation, he saith, Germana illa & antiqua translatse corrupta & violate est:  That ancient and true translation of the Septuagint, is corrupted and violated, which, as Hierome saith, was agreeable to the Hebrew: but so is not the Greek copie now extant, which is full of corruptions, and seemeth to be a mixt and confused translation of many: wherefore our adversaries doe labour to justifie the Latine translations: some of their arguments let us see.

Synopsis Papismi, that is, a Generall Viewe of Papistrie, Andrew Willet, London: John Haviland, 1634, pp. 20-21

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.

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).

75 souls - Acts 7:14

Acts 7:14 – Those searching for contradictions in the Bible feel they have one here: “threescore and fifteen souls” – seventy-five (Acts 7:14) versus “threescore and ten” – seventy (Genesis 46:27). Some appeal to the Greek Septuagint to resolve the “contradiction.”[1] However, the Baptist theologian John Gill offers this explanation:

But there is no contradiction; Moses and Stephen are speaking of different things; Moses speaks of the seed of Jacob, which came out of his loins, who came into Egypt, and so excludes his sons’ wives; Stephen speaks of Jacob and all his kindred, among whom his sons’ wives must be reckoned, whom Joseph called to him: according to Moses’s account, the persons that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, and so exclusive of his sons’ wives, were threescore and six; to which if we add Jacob himself, and Joseph who was before in Egypt, and who might be truly said to come into it, and his two sons that were born there, who came thither in his loins, as others in the account may be said to do, who were not yet born, when Jacob went down, the total number is threescore and ten, (Genesis 46:26-27) out of which take the six following persons, Jacob, who was called by Joseph into Egypt, besides the threescore and fifteen souls, and Joseph and his two sons then in Egypt, who could not be said to be called by him, and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez not yet born, and this will reduce Moses’s number to sixty four; to which sixty four, if you add the eleven wives of Jacob’s sons, who were certainly part of the kindred called and invited into Egypt, Genesis 45:10 it will make up completely threescore and fifteen persons…nor was there any need to alter and corrupt the Septuagint version of Genesis 45:27 to make it agree with Stephen’s account; or to add five names in it, in Acts 7:20 as Machir, Galaad, Sutalaam, Taam, and Edom, to make up the number seventy five: and it may be observed, that the number is not altered in the version of Deuteronomy 10:22 which agrees with the Hebrew for seventy persons.[2]

Notice also “all his kindred” (which is 75) in Acts 7:14, compared to “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins” and “all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob” (which is 70) in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5. “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives” (Genesis 46:26) excludes them from the count. And “for Joseph was in Egypt already” (Exodus 1:5; Genesis 46:27) differentiates those descendants (Joseph and his sons) who came into Egypt a different way, or at a different time. Gill notes in his commentary on Genesis 46:26-27:

such as were his seed and offspring. This is observed for the sake of what follows, and to exclude them: besides Jacob’s sons’ wives;

 

these do not come into the account, because they did not spring from him: all the souls [were] threescore and six;

 

thirty two of Leah’s, leaving out Er and Onan,[3] sixteen of Zilpah’s, fourteen of Rachel’s, and seven of Bilhah’s, make sixty nine; take out of them Joseph and his two sons, who were in Egypt before, and you have the exact number of sixty six.[4]

---

[1] For example, Ellicott’s Commentary: “Here, however, Stephen had the authority of the LXX. of Gen. xlvi. 27, which gives the number at seventy-five...Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, naturally accepted, without caring to investigate, the number which he found in the Greek version” (E. A. Plumptre, p. 39). “And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls” (Genesis 46:27 in the Brenton translation of the Greek Septuagint, p. 64). Additionally, this does not deal with Deuteronomy 10:22 in the LXX (70).
[2] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-7-14.html
[3] Er and Onan, who died before in the land of Canaan, are excluded from the count. Genesis 38:7-10.
[4] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/genesis-46-26.html

Romans 3 and Psalm 14

Reviewing and Comparing Romans 3 and Psalm 14.

Some people claim that Paul quoted from Psalm 13/14 from the LXX. I believe it is more likely that the LXX of Psalm 13/14 was later (after Paul wrote to the Romans) conformed to match what Paul wrote in Romans 3.

The Vaticanus LXX can be checked HERE. However, the pages load very very slowly (at least on my computer). To find the Psalm, go to thumbnail 630. Some of it is also on page 631.

When discussing and debating evidentiary matters, going to the source is the best solution to settle questions about the exhibit entered into evidence. However, if you despair of getting the relevant page to open on your computer, you may also review this secondary source. You can look at how this material is added in as verse 3b in the Greek OT with Brenton English translation.

3b τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὑτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν· ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν· οὐκ ἔστι φόβος Θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

3b Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.

It is included as a footnote (*) in the Greek Old Testament provided online by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. These words are not in the Hebrew text.

The Septuagint text muffles and muddles what is actually the citation by Paul of a number of Old Testament texts from different locations. It suggests that someone revised this portion of the Greek Old Testament to make it match the citations made by Paul.

• “Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit” is from Psalm 5:9
• “the poison of asps is under their lips” is from Psalm 140:3
• “whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness” is from Psalm 10:7
• “their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known” is from Isaiah 59:7-8
• “there is no fear of God before their eyes” is from Psalm 36:1. 

“If” Paul is quoting the Greek Old Testament and those words were then in Psalm 14, then the conclusion would be that we need to trash the Hebrew original language apographs, and buy & use only a Greek Old Testament, or an English translation of it! On the other hand, we might realize how many huge messes exist in what has been passed down to us as the Greek OT, and instead trust the Hebrew text and the English translation based on it. Paul, under inspiration of the Spirit, is citing various OT passages that support that the Scriptures conclude all under sin.

The portion in the clip below (from page 630 at the link I gave in the first paragraph) that is circled in red is from what Brenton calls 3b, the suspect portion matching Romans 3 – but is missing in the Hebrew text.

The typed portion below that I place in double brackets is not in the scan clipped below, but is over on the next page.

 ΕἰΣΤὸΤέΛΟΣΨΑΛΜὸΣΤῷΔΑΥΐΔ. - ΕΙΠΕΝ ἄΦΡΩΝ ἐΝ ΚΑΡΔίᾳ ΑὐΤΟῦ· ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙ ΘΕόΣ. ΔΙΕΦΘάΡΗΣΑΝ ΚΑὶ ἐΒΔΕΛύΧΘΗΣΑΝ ἐΝ ἐΠΙΤΗΔΕύΜΑΣΙΝ, ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙ ΠΟΙῶΝ ΧΡΗΣΤόΤΗΤΑ, ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙΝ ἕΩΣ ἑΝόΣ. 2 ΚύΡΙΟΣ ἐΚ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ ΔΙέΚΥΨΕΝ ἐΠὶ ΤΟὺΣ ΥἱΟὺΣ ΤῶΝ ἀΝΘΡώΠΩΝ ΤΟῦ ἰΔΕῖΝ Εἰ ἔΣΤΙ ΣΥΝΙὼΝ ἢ ἐΚΖΗΤῶΝ ΤὸΝ ΘΕόΝ. 3A ΠάΝΤΕΣ ἐΞέΚΛΙΝΑΝ, ἅΜΑ ἠΧΡΕΙώΘΗΣΑΝ, ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙ ΠΟΙῶΝ ΧΡΗΣΤόΤΗΤΑ, ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙΝ ἕΩΣ ἑΝόΣ. 3B ΤάΦΟΣ ἀΝΕῳΓΜέΝΟΣ ὁ ΛάΡΥΓΞ ΑὐΤῶΝ, ΤΑῖΣ ΓΛώΣΣΑΙΣ ΑὑΤῶΝ ἐΔΟΛΙΟῦΣΑΝ· ἰὸΣ ἀΣΠίΔΩΝ ὑΠὸ Τὰ ΧΕίΛΗ ΑὐΤῶΝ, ὧΝ Τὸ ΣΤόΜΑ ἀΡᾶΣ ΚΑὶ ΠΙΚΡίΑΣ ΓέΜΕΙ, ὀΞΕῖΣ Οἱ ΠόΔΕΣ ΑὐΤῶΝ ἐΚΧέΑΙ ΑἷΜΑ, ΣύΝΤΡΙΜΜΑ ΚΑὶ ΤΑΛΑΙΠΩΡίΑ ἐΝ ΤΑῖΣ [[ὁΔΟῖΣ ΑὐΤῶΝ, ΚΑὶ ὁΔὸΝ ΕἰΡήΝΗΣ ΟὐΚ ἔΓΝΩΣΑΝ· ΟὐΚ ἔΣΤΙ ΦόΒΟΣ ΘΕΟῦ ἀΠέΝΑΝΤΙ ΤῶΝ ὀΦΘΑΛΜῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ.]]

[Note: Our Psalm 14 is Psalm 13 in the Greek Old Testament.]

Psalm numbering, again

In regard to the Psalm numbering key I posted yesterday, someone asked if I could include the Latin Vulgate. I have revised the chart accordingly. The Vulgate numbering of the Psalms follows the Septuagint. It is possible that some of the internal verse numbering varies. (I did not check all that.)

I found a Catholic site that states that in the USA the Catholic Psalm numbering follows the number in the Hebrew, while in some European Catholic Bibles the numbering follows the Vulgate/Septuagint. This would be in reference to translations.

I also added Psalm 151, which appears in the Brenton Septuagint without a number, and is also in the Latin Vulgate (but not the Douay-Rheims English translation).

Numbering of Psalms in Greek and Hebrew Traditions

Comparing the Psalms in the KJV and LXX may become confusing because of the differences of the numbering of the individual Psalms (which divisions some mistakenly call chapters). This reflects a difference in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint traditions. A general but inexact rule of thumb is that most of them are off by one number. Here is a quick key of comparison.

Sometimes there are internal verse numbering differences, such as the superscriptions being numbered as the 1st verse in English translations of the LXX (Septuagint), while not being numbered in the King James translation. Compare, for example, Psalm 3.

LXX Verse 1: A Psalm of David, when he fled from the presence of his son Abessalom.

KJV Superscription: A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.

Resources I used for comparison are HERE and HERE, as well as a print copy of the Brenton translation. It is my understanding that Lancelot Brenton’s translation is based on Codex Vaticanus, via the Sixtine edition of 1587 and the Valpy edition of 1819 (which was Brenton’s immediate source). If anyone finds any discrepancies or errors in the above key, please let me know. Thanks.

Goliath, a giant

Goliath, the not-so-giant giant?

Introduction

Back in December 2022, an interloper swooped down into the “King James Bible / Textus Receptus Defenders” Facebook group. He was anti-King James, anti-Masoretic text, and pro-Greek Old Testament. In about three or four days he put up hundreds of posts, then, either having expended all the contrary items he knew or having worn out his welcome – or both – he moved on to play games elsewhere.

One of his anti-KJV anti-Masoretic text screeds was about the height of Goliath, the not-so-giant giant, reduced in height by 3 feet. The Hebrew Masoretic text was wrong; the Greek LXX was right. Here is the relevant verse for inspection.

KJV English translation from the Masoretic text

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

וַיֵּצֵ֤א אִֽישׁ־הַבֵּנַ֙יִם֙ מִמַּחֲנ֣וֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים גָּלְיָ֥ת שְׁמ֖וֹ מִגַּ֑ת גָּבְה֕וֹ שֵׁ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת וָזָֽרֶת׃

Brenton English translation from the LXX

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height [was] four cubits and a span.

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς ἐκ τῆς παρατάξεως τῶν ἀλλοφύλων Γολιὰθ ὄνομα αὐτῶν ἐκ Γέθ, ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς·

Immediately a difference stands out – the Hebrew Goliath stands at 6 cubits and a span (about 9 feet 9 inches) while the Greek Goliath is two cubits shorter, four cubits and a span (about 6 feet 9 inches).[i] What to do?

Witnesses for the short Goliath

The interloper, with great intent to slight the Masoretic text, argued that the Greek reading is supported by Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In that he is correct. Josephus stated:

Now there came down a man out of the camp of the Philistines, whose name was Goliath, of the city of Gath; a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness: and had about him weapons suitable to the largeness of his body: for he had a breast-plate on that weighed five thousand shekels. Josephus, Antiquities, Book VI, Chapter 9, Verse 1

Josephus is an historian to whom we often turn to see what he has to say about 1st century Jewish and Christian history. Often, he can be very interesting and helpful. On the other hand, he is neither inspired nor infallible. What his description tells us is that he had access to a text that was corrupted in this verse, perhaps like the Dead Sea Scroll or the Greek Old Testament. On the other hand, folks like the interloper mentioned above mention the late date of the Masoretic Text we are using. Then keep quiet about the date of the manuscripts of Josephus. I believe none of them are older than the 11th century AD.[ii]

What Josephus wrote has been known for centuries, but perhaps revived in interest with the discovery of scroll 4QSam(a). Translated into English, the scroll says something like:

“Then a champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was FOUR CUBITS and a span.” 1 Samuel 17:4, Dead Sea Scroll 4QSam(a) circa 75 BC

The Qumran scrolls, discovered in 1947, had been out of the possession of both the Jews or the Lord’s churches – or anyone else – for over one thousand nine hundred and fifty years. They are a grand historical find, but they are not part of the scriptures God preserved in the pillar and ground of his truth. We cannot accept the Bible doctrine of the preservation of his word and also insert hidden words outside the provenance of the Lord’s churches. These scrolls have been preserved as historical documents, but not as words in use by the Lord’s people. In fact, just who produced and used these still seems an unsettled question.

The interloper boldly claimed, “The oldest Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, which are MSS of the Book of Samuel, go back to the 1st to the 3rd century BC. These agree perfectly with the LXX today.” Quite the lie, known to be so by those who carefully study the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either he was deceived himself, or set out to deceive. Sometimes the scrolls agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and sometimes with the Greek Old Testament, and sometimes have differences from both.[iii]

Here is a closer look at the scroll “containing” 1 Samuel 17:4. For his readers, the interloper did not give a fair and honest representation of the DSS 1 Samuel 7:14. In English translations we find many of the words either bracketed or italicized as below – because this portion of the scroll is very fragmentary. All the relevant words are not actually visible and must be supplied!

[Then] a cha[mpion named Goliath, who was from Gath, ca]me out [of the Philistine camp. His height was f]our [cubits] and a span.[iv]

A champion out of the camp of the Philistines named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span went out.[v]

Notice in both presentations (though slightly different) there are more unreadable words than readable ones. This is problematic in that are entire change in the Bible could rest on either the skill or guesswork of those trying to reconstruct this text.

Concerning the Greek translation of the Old Testament, we also must understand that there is not one THE Septuagint – not just one that is complete, final, and authoritative. There are numerous ones, some of which have five cubits or six cubits rather than four cubits.[vi] For example, see a reference book on Origen’s Hexapla on 1 Samuel 17:4.[vii]

Notably, Greek Old Testaments have other corruptions in 1 Samuel. For example, the text preferred in the Brenton translation is missing 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55-58, 18:1-5 – but the Alexandrine text has these verses, which Brenton supplies in an appendix.[viii]

Witnesses supporting the Masoretic text

Those clamoring for the “shorter” reading sometimes fail to recognize or mention other witnesses in addition to the Masoretic Text – such as the Vulgate, Peshitta (“his height was six cubits and a half cubit”), and Targums (Jonathan, שִׁתָּא אַמִין וְזֵירְתָא). The Greek translation of the Old Testament by the Jew Symmachus (circa AD 200) has six cubits and a span. He attempted to accurately translate the Hebrew into Greek. The use of “six cubits and a span” indicates he had a manuscript at that time, with that reading. The fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla also contains the reading six cubits and a span. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome in the fourth century is another witness to the greater elevation of Goliath – “sex cubitorum et palmo,” that is, “six cubits and a span.” This height may also be found in Midrash Jewish exegesis.[ix]

Other Bible evidence

It is worthwhile to note other mentions of height in the Bible, though there are not that many.

Several commentators and historians (including the NET Bible), however accurately, put the average height of an Israelite male around the time of David and Goliath at about 5 feet 3 inches.[x] Saul was head and shoulders taller than the tallest Israelite of his time – maybe around 6 feet tall, or perhaps a little more (1 Samuel 9:2). Og king of Bashan’s height is not given in the Scriptures, but he had a nine-cubit bedstead (13-1/2 feet). LXX (ἐννέα πήχεων) agrees here. It is unlikely that a “7 ft. giant” would need or want a 13 ft bed. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada slew an Egyptian who was five cubits high (that is, about 7-1/2 ft. See 2 Samuel 23:21; 1 Chronicles 11:23). This Egyptian would be taller than the LXX Goliath. He is simply called a man of great stature.

Many exegetes have noted the size and weight of Goliath’s armor and weapon. The staff of his spear was “like a weaver’s beam” with the head itself weighing about 15 pounds.[xi] His armor probably weighed about 130 pounds. This is not conclusive, but certainly is suggestive of the larger Goliath.

The Companion Bible points out the characterization of Goliath by the number six: “Note his number ‘6’ is stamped like a ‘hallmark’ on this ‘man’” – the six cubits, “the six pieces of armour,” and the six hundred shekels of iron.[xii]

Conclusion

To me, it seems like a thread running through the supporters of short Goliath is the difficulty to believe this man could actually have been over nine feet tall. In “The Height of Goliath: A Text Critical Question,” Jonathan Burke wrote:

“This is a height which is not only highly unlikely for any Iron Age man, but far beyond what would have been considered a giant at the time.” (2011, p. 1)

Burke continues, “Archaeology has shown that the heroes buried in the ‘royal tombs’ at Mycenae were 1.76 ‐ 1.80 mtr. tall, [about 5’10”] while the height of the average man at that period (according to the skeletons excavated) was 1.64 mtr. [about 5’4”] both in the Aegean lands and in Canaan.”[xiii]

In contrast to Burke, the Unger’s Bible Dictionary (among other sources) claims that “Skeltons recovered in Palestine attest the fact that men as tall as Goliath [i.e., “over nine feet”] once lived in that general region.”[xiv]

Modern textual critics seem split on the issue. Peter Gurry and John Meade write:

“Although the six-nine Goliath has the earlier and perhaps better external evidence, the nine-nine Goliath is probably more likely original because a later scribe probably found a contextual reason (1 Sam. 9:2) to shorten Goliath to six nine.”[xv]

Benjamin J. M. Johnson concludes similarly Gurry and Meade. Johnson argues that the change to “six” in cubits from reading the number later in “six hundred” is unlikely, and that the height of the giant is so iconic that a scribe would not likely miss that. He argues rather that it is more likely an intentional change from six to four.

“…the reference to ‘six hundred’ in v. 7 seems fairly far removed from v. 4. For example in 4QSam^a it is four lines apart. Furthermore, if the reception history of this story is anything to judge by, it strikes me as unlikely that a scribe would accidentally change something as iconic as the height of Goliath. It seems more likely that the change in height is the result of intentional exegesis…there does seem to be a good narrative reason for a scribe to lower the height of Goliath. If Goliath is merely four cubits, or around six foot six inches tall, then, though a towering figure, he is not a creature of legend but merely an extremely big man. Rather than give the account verisimilitude, this shortening of Goliath serves as a critique of Saul, who is head and shoulders taller than everyone in Israel (1 Sam 9:2). After all, who better to face the Philistine giant, than the Israelite giant—Saul?[xvi]

Modern translators are slow to agree with a short Goliath. For example, on Bible Gateway, of 54 translations of 1 Samuel 17:4, 50 of these accept the Masoretic reading, 3 take the LXX reading, and 1 vaguely says “almost twice as tall as most men.” The majority of translators are not beating a path to the LXX door on this verse.

The interloper’s argument mostly falls flat as an anti-KJV screed. We should never fear believing our King James and Masoretic Text, six cubits and a span / שֵׁ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת וָזָֽרֶת.

---

[i] In this essay, I am using the measurement of a cubit equaling about 18 inches, and a span about half that, 9 inches. There are other opinions about these measurements.
[ii] Josephus: all the Greek Manuscripts. This, in my mind, leaves open the possibility that his text was “corrected” to match the Septuagint reading. I have not researched this carefully. It is just an initial thought. Others may have already proven whether this could or could not be so. Other things that could be researched – possibly have been and I am not aware of it – are (1) might Josephus have been a member of the Jewish party who used the Dead Sea Scrolls, and (2) could the cubit have been adjusted to what translators felt was a changing standard of how many increments comprised a cubit.
[iii] Scrolls editor Emanuel Tov identifies 5 different groups of DSS texts: 1. Texts written in Qumran practice (about 20% of the texts); 2. Proto-Masoretic texts (about 35%); 3. Pre-Samaritan texts (about 5%); 4. Texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of G (about 5%); and Non-aligned texts (about 35%). Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, pp. 114-116.
[iv] The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, Martin G. Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, Editors (translation and commentary) HarperCollins, p. 229
[v] Words in italics cannot be seen in the scroll, since the scroll is fragmentary. Words present in the scroll but with some letters unreadable or missing are in blue. Dead Sea Scrolls English Bible Translation.
[vi] LXX^A and LXX^L have 4, while LXX^B has 6. The “odd man out” is the 8th century manuscript known as Codex Venetus, which has the reading five cubits and a span (i.e., circa 7 feet 3 inches). 1 Samuel is not in Sinaiticus.
[vii] 4. שֵׁשׁ. Ο. τεσσάρων. Alia exempl.  Πεντε.7 Σ και οι λοιποι εξ.8 7. Sic Codd. XI, 29, 52, 55 alii (inter quos 243).  So Codices 11, 29, 52, 55 others (including 243). 8. Cod. 243. Sic in textu Ald., Codd. III, 44, 74, alii, Arm. I. Codex 243. Thus in the text Ald., Codd. III, 44, 74, others, Arm. I. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt; Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in Totum vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, Tomus I, Genesis-Esther, Fridericus Field, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875, p. 515.
[viii] Brenton’s translation is based on Codex Vaticanus, via Sixtine edition of 1587 and the Valpy edition of 1819 (which was Brenton’s immediate source). For more on LXX manuscripts, see Manuscripts of the Septuagint. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes, by Henry Barclay Swete.
[ix] On I Samuel 17:49, medieval French rabbi Rashi cites Midrash Tehillim 18:32, which says that Goliath fell forward rather than backwards, “so that David wouldn’t have to go to so much trouble to cut off his head. He gained twelve cubits and two spans.” Noticeably, this is twice the height of Goliath, if he is considered to be six cubits and a span. Midrashes Vayikra Rabbah and Shir Hashirim Rabbah also say that Goliath fell forward toward David, although they only give Goliath’s actual height, six cubits and a span. Some interpreters think all three of these intend to express the same idea – the former (Tehillim) expressing it in the distance difference of falling forward instead of backward (12 cubits and 2 spans), while the other two simply express how far he fell forward (6 cubits and a span).
[x] NET Bible note on 1 Samuel 17:4 – tc Heb “his height was six cubits and a span.” The LXX, a Qumran manuscript of 1 Samuel, and Josephus read “four cubits and a span.” A cubit was approximately 17.5 inches, a span half that. So the Masoretic text places Goliath at about 9½ feet tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres” while the other textual witnesses place him at about 6 feet, 7 inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). Note, too, that the cubit was adjusted through history, also attested in Babylon (NIDOTTE 421-424 s.v. אַמָּה). If the cubits measuring Goliath were reckoned as the cubit of Moses, his height at 6 cubits and a span would be approximately 7 feet 9 inches tall. This is one of many places in Samuel where the LXX and Qumran evidence seems superior to the Masoretic text. It is possible that the scribe’s eye skipped briefly to the number 6 a few lines below in a similar environment of letters. The average Israelite male of the time was about 5 feet 3 inches, so a man 6 feet 7 inches would be a very impressive height. Saul, being head and shoulder above most Israelites, would have been nearly 6 feet tall. That is still shorter than Goliath, even at “four cubits and a span,” and makes a sharper contrast between David and Saul. There would have been a greater expectation that a 6 foot tall Saul would confront a 6 feet 7 inches Goliath, placing Saul in a bad light while still positioning David as a hero of faith, which is fitting to the context.
[xi] Oddly, Jonathan Burke argues that the description refers to being like looped cords on a weaver’s beam, “that enabled a warrior to throw it harder and further.” Then he says “spears were commonly used to thrust at short range rather than thrown (note Goliath does not throw his spear.” Burke, p. 2.
[xii] The Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger, editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, (original) 1922, p.389.
[xiii] Burke, page 1, fn 1; from Margalith, “The Sea Peoples in the Bible,” p. 49 (1994).
[xiv] Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, p. 419.
[xv] “How Tall Was Goliath? A Textual Dilemma,” at Crossway.
[xvi] B. J. M. Johnson, “Reconsidering 4QSam^a and the Textual Support for the Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story,” Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012), pp. 539-540.