Christ’s Use of Targums
Dr. Thomas M. Strouse
Dean, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
Newington, CT
Introduction
In the time of the building of the Second Temple, the
enemies to this construction project wrote a letter of complaint to Ahasuerus.
Apparently this Persian document was written with Aramaic script and
“interpreted” (methurgam) in the Syrian tongue (Ez. 4:7). The
interpretation was a Targum from the verb tirgam (~g:r>Ti).
This biblical foundation gives the precedent for the interpretive translation of
a document to be called a Targum. Historically, the Jews referred to the
Aramaic portions of Genesis, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra as Targums, and
later rabbis developed the Babylonian Targum, interpreting the Tanak or
Old Testament (OT) Scriptures. The writers of the New Testament (NT), along
with the Lord Jesus Christ, employed the practice of interpreting/translating
the Tanak in their citations of the OT. These biblical NT
interpretations, or Targums,
were inspired (II Tim. 3:16). One may note the instances of “targuming” in both
the Gospels and the Book of Acts (cf. the many NT citations of the OT).
Knowledge of this biblical practice of employing the Targum helps the
serious Bible student understand the bibliology of Christ and the NT writers.
Although the prevailing view concerning the Lord’s use of the OT is that He
quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), this essay will demonstrate
Scripturally the irrefutable position that the Hebrew OT text was preserved
intact in Christ’s day, that Christ and the Apostles cited from the preserved
Hebrew text and consequently did not use the LXX as their OT source, and
that Christ and Apostles did employ inspired targuming as their contribution to
the NT text.
Synagogue Practice
James affirmed that the Torah was the text by which
preaching was done on every Sabbath in every town of Judea, and elsewhere, in
the synagogue (Acts 15:21). Therefore, synagogues, distributed over a
widespread geographical area, functioned as the first century training center
for Jewish understanding of the Torah on their religious day (cf. Acts
13:27). The early Christians regularly frequented the synagogues (Acts 6:9;
9:2, 20; 13:5, 14, 43; 17:2; 21:26) because the synagogue leaders afforded them
the opportunity to give a “word of exhortation”
(Acts 13:15). Paul’s word of exhortation was a summary interpretation of many
passages from the Law (Torah) and Prophets (Nebiim) and the
Writings (Kethubim), pointing the Jews to Jesus of Nazareth as the
fulfillment of these Messianic Scriptures (cf. vv. 17-37). The Gentile Luke
gave elaborate detail of a typical Sabbath synagogue service involving the Lord
Jesus Christ (Lk. 4:16-21).
1) The reader stood, received the scroll, and opened it (vv. 16-17). 2) The
reader read the OT Scripture and then gave his “running” interpretation or
Targum of the passage at hand (vv. 17b-19). 3) The reader rolled up the
scroll, handed it back, and sat down (v. 20). 4) The reader preached his sermon
or “word of exhortation” (cf. 21 ff.). This synopsis of these
aforementioned biblical texts reveals foundation knowledge about the NT
Christians’ practice of employing the OT Scriptures in the synagogue.
Case Study: Lk. 4:18
The Phenomenon
Luke’s record of the practice of the Lord Jesus Christ in
the synagogue is instructive for the serious Bible student. The Scripture Luke
recorded generally cites Isa. 61:1-2a and one clause of Isa. 58:6d (g). Several
observations are in order concerning the Scriptural phenomenon (see Chart # 1).
1) Luke gave the reference of the OT text and stated that this Scripture (Isa.
61:1-2a) was written (cf. Lk. 4:4). The perfect tense of his verb “is
written” (gegraptai) indicates that the Hebrew had been written (by
Isaiah) and was still intact in Christ’s day. 2) The actual words Luke inscribed
obviously were not the exact equivalent words of the Hebrew text, or any text
for that matter. By comparing the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT), the Greek
translation (LXX), the Critical Text (CT), and the Textus Receptus
(TR), several truths come to light. a) Concerning agreement, the MT, LXX,
CT and TR basically agree
in clauses 61:1a, b, c, e, f, and 61:2a. b) Concerning differences the MT, TR
and LXX agree against the CT for clause d,
and the TR and CT agree against the MT and LXX in adding clause g (Isa.
58:6d). Furthermore, the TR, LXX and CT extend the concept of clause f,
deviating from the original Hebrew text. It should be obvious then, that no
translation quoted verbatim the Hebrew text.
Since the Hebrew text had been preserved, word perfect,
according to Luke’s own testimony (gegraptai), the LXX, TR, and CT
are renderings which add and/or subtract words in their respective translation
of the preserved words of Isa. 61:1-2a. For instance, the TR, LXX, and
CT all add an unusual twist to the Hebrew clause f, changing the concept and
word “bound” (’asuriym) to “blind” (tuphlois). It becomes obvious
that the post-Hebrew writers did not directly quote the Hebrew text but
paraphrased or even targumed the OT Scriptures. How then, does one understand
and explain the following summary of salient points of this phenomenon?
1. The Hebrew text was preserved
intact in the scroll from which Christ read.
2. Luke recorded what Christ
said, not read, since He added clause g (“to set at liberty them that are
bruised”).
3. Christ did not quote
verbatim either from the Hebrew text or the LXX.
The Explanations
VIEW ONE: Christ and the Apostles Used the LXX
The prevailing view, which has a degree of antiquity,
denies that the Hebrew text was intact in Christ’s day, but rather affirms that
He quoted from the LXX, since that was His and the early Christians’
Scriptures. For instance, Stewart Custer asseverates that “Luke (and Stephen
[Acts 7:42]) always quote from the Septuagint.”
A more recent work continues the claim of this popular mantra, stating,
The Septuagint (LXX) was the
Bible for the Greek-speaking world. The Septuagint, which was the Greek
translation of the Hebrew OT for the Greek speaking Jews of the Diasopra
or Dispersion, was certainly different from the Masoretic text we use today…Why
did Christ use the Septuagint? Why did our Savior not launch a crusade against
the false Septuagint?...Yet, Paul used the Septuagint. Matthew used the
Septuagint.
The argument goes accordingly, that since the early
Christians, including Christ, employed the LXX as their OT Scriptures,
and although it is universally accepted that the veracity of the LXX is
questionable in many places, it follows that this precedent allows for modern
Christians to accept as and even call all modern translations, regardless of
omissions and additions, “the word of God.”
So sensitive to the obvious conclusion that the
aforementioned view holds a weak bibliology, Archer and Chirichigno have
responded in detail with an attempt to quell such a conclusion in a qualifying
manner.
They have the unenviable task of articulating the apologetic against liberals
who deny inerrancy and question the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture,
while at the same time defending evangelicals (and a growing number of
fundamentalists)
who hold to the inspiration, but not to the verbal, plenary preservation, of
Scripture. Archer and Chirichigno want to say, yes, liberals are wrong, who
want to use the argument that since the Hebrew OT and LXX do not agree,
the doctrine of inerrancy and therefore inspiration is compromised. However,
they also want to say that evangelicals are orthodox who argue, that since the
Hebrew and LXX do not agree, there is no compromising of the doctrine of
preservation, and that all translations are really the word of God.
Archer and Chirichigno employ three arguments, one
historical, one “biblical,” and one practical, to justify their bibliology with
respect to the LXX: 1) “The missionary outreach of the evangelists and
apostles of the early church,” 2) “Matthew and Hebrews often quote from the OT
in a non-LXX [but Greek] form,” and 3) “That inexact quotations imply a
low view of the Bible is really without foundation.”
These arguments not only “beg the question” but prompt biblical refutation.
The Missionary Outreach Bible
Accordingly, the consensus of most scholarship assumes that
the LXX was available to and had the veritable character for Christ and
the apostles to use as their OT Scriptures. This consensus is faulty because of
two important Bible truths. First of all, the Bible plainly demonstrates that
the Lord Jesus Christ used the Hebrew OT for His Scripture and that He never
used the LXX. Secondly, the Lord and the apostles did not need to
utilize the LXX for the evangelism of the Jews and Gentiles and
consequently did not.
Expanding on the second point as it relates to the current
heading, the biblical evidence needed to argue for Christ and the apostles’
evangelistic use of the LXX is wanting. Supposedly, the Alexandrian
hellenization was so great that the Jews ceased using the Hebrew Scriptures in
the first century. Instead, according to this theory, they replaced their
Hebrew Tanak with the LXX. This unbiblical presupposition is
easily refuted with Scripture. 1) There is no question that Hebrew was a known
and read language of the first century since Pilate required the title on the
cross to be written in three known and read languages of the Greco-Roman world—“Hebrew
and Greek and Latin” (Jn. 19:20).
2) The Apostle Paul, in his great apologetic speech, spoke to the Jews in
Jerusalem “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40 ff.). 3) The Lord Jesus
Christ spoke both Hebrew (“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”) and Aramaic (“Eloi,
Eloi, lama sabachthani”) from the Cross, as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark
testify (Mt. 27:46 and Mk. 15:34, respectively). 4) The Lord also spoke to Paul
“in the Hebrew tongue” at the time of his conversion (Acts 26:14).
Several pertinent biblical facts emerge: Christ and the apostles were
multilingual, the Jews could read Hebrew, and the Jews could understand spoken
Hebrew. Therefore, as the Scriptures state “for Moses of old time hath in
every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day”
(Acts 15:21), there is no biblical reason to assume that any language other than
Hebrew was the language of the Jews in Jerusalem in the first century. In a
word, the Jews throughout Judea read the Hebrew Tanak every Sabbath in
their respective synagogues.
Since the Jews of first century Palestine knew how to read
and speak Hebrew, the Lord and the apostles did not need to use the LXX
for evangelistic purposes toward the Jews. For instance, the initial ministry
of Christ was to the Jews in Galilee and Judaea (Jn. 1:19-4:3). He sent His
Jewish apostles to the Jews to declare to them that their Jewish King was on
hand (Mt. 10:2-6). When He ministered to the Jews, there was no exegetical
necessity that He had to use the LXX, and not use the Hebrew Tanak.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to the Jews citing the OT book of Joel,
but not using the LXX (cf. Acts 2:14-36). When the Lord Jesus Christ
ministered to the Syrophenician Greek woman, He did not use the Hebrew Tanak
or the LXX, but His own inspired words in Greek (Mk. 7:26-30). For the
Gentiles in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and who did not know Hebrew,
the Spirit of God guided the apostles “to speak with other tongues” (Acts 2:4),
and eliminated the need to use the LXX. The apostles instructed the new
converts, from both the Jews and the Gentiles, in “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts
2:42). This teaching was not from the Tanak or the LXX, but from
Christ’s earthly teaching ministry which He taught in Greek to His disciples
(cf. Lk. 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). It should be apparent from Scripture that Christ and
the early Christians did not have the necessity to evangelize Jews or Gentiles
with the LXX, and in fact they did not.
The Early Christians used Greek OT Sources for their ‘Bible’
The essence of this argument is that Christ and the
apostles used other OT Greek sources since their respective “quotes” from the
Tanak deviated from both the Hebrew and LXX. This position is based
on the fallible premise of the first argument and rejects the biblical teaching
that the Hebrew text is preserved intact and that the Lord and early Christians
employed targuming on the Scriptures. Therefore Archer and Chirichigno must
posit the inane sentiment that there was a pre-Hebrew Bible which has evidence
of existence in the deviant readings of the LXX. They state, “it should
also be observed that, at least in some cases, those Greek renderings (whether
LXX or not) point to a variant reading in the original form of the text
that is better than the one that has come down to us in the standard Hebrew
Bible.”
The world of Christian scholarship has not only accepted the liberal position of
the mythical “Q” document of Higher Criticism, but also the mythical original
Hebrew “proto-Masoretic” text represented in the mythical original Greek “proto-LXX”
text.
By all accounts the original
LXX text is unknown. Thackeray states,
The main value of the LXX is its
witness to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct
this Hebrew text we need to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at
present far from possessing…the original text has yet to be recovered…Not a
verse is without its array of variant readings.
Ewert adds more to this agnosticism concerning the
“original” text of the LXX, saying, “it is very difficult today always to
know exactly which readings were present in the LXX originally.”
This position clearly denies that there is either a preserved Hebrew original or
a OT Greek “original,” and consequently requires reconstruction of both texts
through the so-called science of Lower Criticism. The only assurance that the
Christian world has, according to this position, is that some day textual
scholars will restore the original OT text along with the original NT text,
because the Lord has not promised to preserve either, nor in fact has preserved
either.
Inexact Quotations of the LXX
This view maintains that the NT writers “quoted” the LXX,
in some cases exactly, and in other cases inexactly, and thus promotes that
inexactitude, with regard to words, is part and parcel of the bibliology of
Christ and the apostles. Belief in the NT writers’ use of the LXX is
foundational for the promotion of 1) the science of textual criticism, 2) the
various Greek editions (Critical and Eclectic text), 3) the multiple English
versions, and 4) this belief culminates in the unbiblical Totality of
Manuscripts position. Therefore, the argument goes, God has preserved His word
(thought, concept, doctrine), but not His Words (although compare Ps. 12:6-7;
Mt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35; and Jn. 12:48). Shaylor defines this position stating,
“This preservation exists in the totality of the ancient language manuscripts of
that revelation.”
He goes on to allude to Harding’s input, saying “Michael Harding in chapter 9
illustrates how ancient translations can be helpful. He points out how the
Septuagint can help in harmonizing a seeming discrepancy in Scripture. His
conclusion recognizes a problem but expresses the faith of one who believes that
God has preserved His Word in the totality ancient MSS…”
Even though the totality of manuscripts has many variant and opposed readings
in the original languages and resultant translations, this should not be a
reason for the Christian to give pause. Shaylor confidently concludes that, in
spite of the inexactitude of words, believers should have great assurance in
God’s preservation, stating “When we use a faithful conservative translation
such as the King James Version, New King James Version, the New American
Standard Version, or another version of demonstrated accuracy we can trust our
Bible as the Word of God. We can be confident that we have God’s Word in our
hands.”
VIEW TWO: Christ and the Apostles Targumed the Preserved
Hebrew Text
In order for the Biblicist to combat almost two
millennia of historical tradition, the believer must rely solely upon the
Scriptures.
There is no question that View One has antiquity as its “proof” for veracity.
Of course, all that antiquity really proves is that both truth and error go back
to the beginning. Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the source for and
measurement of all inscripturated truth (I Cor. 2:13) because it is truth (Jn.
17:17). The arguments for the veracity of View Two follow the Scriptural
teaching that the Hebrew text was preserved, that Christ did not look to the
LXX as his OT Bible since the original preserved Hebrew text was available,
and that both Christ and the apostles targumed the OT Hebrew text.
The Preserved Hebrew Text
When Satan tempted the Lord Jesus Christ, He submitted
Himself to the written words of God
by saying, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). The expression
“It is written” (gegraptai) is in the perfect tense indicating past
action with continuing results.
In effect, the Lord said that this Hebrew verse to which He alluded (Dt. 8:3),
and obviously the Hebrew Book of Deuteronomy and consequently the Hebrew
Pentateuch, had been written (by Moses the Hebrew) and was still written to His
very day. The Lord Jesus Christ had the preserved words of the Hebrew OT
available to Him just as He had promised (cf. Dt. 4:2; 12:32; 17:18-20; 29:1,29;
30:11-14 [vide Rom. 10:6-8]; 31:9-13, 24-27; Josh. 1:7-8; Ps. 12:6-7;
119:111, 152, 160).
The Lord taught that the jots and tittles
of the Hebrew OT would be preserved, stating, “For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled” (Mt. 5:18). He believed that the very
consonants and the very vowels of the OT Hebrew words of prophecies (and of
course all the other words of Scripture) were preserved perfectly intact in His
day and would continue until final fulfillment (cf. Jn. 12:48).
Since the Greek OT (LXX) does not have jots and tittles, He was not
referring to this inferior translation, which does have a questionable
background and character.
Again, the Lord Jesus Christ alluded to the three-fold
division of the Hebrew OT, which division the LXX does not follow, when
He affirmed, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Lk. 24:44;
cf. v. 27; also Acts 26:22). The law (Torah), the prophets (Nebiim),
and the writings (Kethubim [of which Psalms was first]) made up the
Hebrew OT and is called the Tanak. He elaborated on His use of the Hebrew OT
when the Lord identified the Pharisees’ persecution of the prophets with their
murderous Jewish ancestors, saying, “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto
you, It shall be required of this generation” (Lk. 11:51). He surveyed the
whole scope of the Hebrew OT, using the examples of the murder of the righteous
Abel from the first book (Genesis 4:8) to the murder of the righteous Zacharias
from the last book (II Chronicles 24:20-22).
The Lord claimed that the Hebrew text was intact in His
day, that the jot and tittles were intact in His day, and alluded to the
three-fold division of the Tanak. This ample biblical evidence has not
been and can not be overturned by textual scholars, since they reject biblical
revelation. Christ absolutely did allude to the Hebrew text, and did not allude
to the LXX, throughout His whole ministry.
The Scriptures state clearly the means by which the Hebrew
text was preserved: “What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is
there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were
committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2).
The Lord blessed His chosen people, the Jews, in many ways, including using them
to preserve the inspired jots and tittles of the Hebrew words of the Tanak (cf.
Rom. 9:3-5). With Christ’s first advent (cf. Mk. 1:1), He gave the privilege
and responsibility for the preservation of the inspired OT Hebrew words and the
canonical NT Greek words to His assembly (Mt. 16:18). The mandate for
preservation comes from the words of the Great Commission: “Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Amen” (Mt. 28:19-20). The root word behind “observe” is terein,
which has both lexical and contextual meanings of “to keep,” “to reserve,” “to
watch,” or “to preserve” (cf. Jude 1:1; Rev. 3:10 [2x]). The Lord commanded
exclusively that His assemblies had the responsibility of evangelizing the
nations (apparently with translations) as they preserved the Hebrew OT
and Greek NT words. Paul declared that the Ephesian church was “the pillar
and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), and this assembly had in its midst
the Jew named Apollos who was “mighty in the (Hebrew OT) scriptures”
(Acts 18:24). Therefore, the Ephesian church was representative of the Lord’s
assemblies which had the wherewithal to preserve both the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures for perpetuity (cf. Eph. 1:1 and Rev. 2:1 ff.).
The Non-Use of the LXX
The greatest challenge for those promoting Christ’s use of
the LXX is overcoming the biblical passages which declare His exclusive
use of the Hebrew text. Since the Lord had the preserved Hebrew text, and since
He could speak and read Hebrew, He had no necessity to use the LXX,
whether it was in existence or not in the first century.
Other challenges to those who must disprove Christ’s
non-use of the LXX include the history, character and known errors of the
LXX. Concerning it history, several questions arise immediately from the
letter of Aristeas. These questions include when was it originally translated,
by how many Jewish elders, and how much of the OT? Thackeray critically admits
that the date of the LXX ranges from the fourth century BC to the second
century BC, that the number of Jewish translators were seventy (LXX) or
seventy-two (LXXII), and that the translation may have only included the
Pentateuch. He states, “Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is
unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer…yet
the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle
truth from fiction.”
The character of the LXX is suspect as well. The
current LXX
contains the Apocrypha intermingled with the canonical books of the Tanak.
Furthermore the LXX scrambles the Hebrew text at places especially in the
Psalms (e.g., 9 and 10 are a single Psalm), and in Jeremiah (vv. 46-51 come
after v. 25:13).
The LXX is rife with errors, omissions and
transcriptional gaffes. For instance, the LXX adds 586 years to the time
from Adam to the Flood in Gen. 5. There is hardly a page in the LXX where
errors do not abound. This author records several alleged errors in the
Masoretic text “corrected” by the LXX (Ps. 2:9; Ps. 145; Amos 5:26).
A recent discovery by this same author recognized that the translators of the
Book of Daniel apparently misread the resh in Meltzar’s name as a
daleth, and translated it as “[A]melsad.” Another discovery involves the
effort of the LXX “to smooth out”
the change of person in Hosea 2:6. The Lord addressed Israel with the second
person suffix (“thy way”) and then employed the third person “she
shall seek.” The LXX uses the third person throughout this verse.
Unger frankly adds these comments about portions of the LXX concerning
its questionable veracity: “The Psalms, on the other hand, and the Book of
Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence…In the latter part of Jeremiah, the
Greek…is ‘unintelligibly literal.’ The Book of Daniel is mere Midrashic
paraphrase.”
Granting for a moment the unproved assumption that there
was a complete LXX prior to Christ’s ministry, one must still prove that
the Lord Jesus Christ, who indeed did have the preserved Hebrew text (Mt. 4:4),
would have any inclination, in precept or practice, to use a questionable
translation in a secondary language to minister NT revelation to Jew or Gentile.
Christ Targumed
The Scripture demands that the interpreter of it
understands the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ did indeed Targum many
of the OT texts to which He referred. In the Case Study of Luke 4:18, several
lines of argumentation for this proposition are set forth.
First, Luke’s use of the perfect verb gegraptai (“it
is written”)
refers to the original inspired Scripture which has continuing results in
written form; i.e., the preserved, inspired original of Isaiah 61:1-2a and
58:6d. When Luke stated “it is written” and then records Christ’s
Targum, he is not teaching that the Lord’s Targum was written, but
the original is intact from which Christ built His Targum. This would be
analogous to someone saying, “you know that verse in John’s Gospel that says
that God loved the world and sent His son and whoever believes in Him won’t
perish—oh, yes, that is John 3:16.” The allusion to the intact written words of
Jn. 3:16 does not diminish the reality of the intact words of the verse.
Second, the Lord Jesus Christ did not quote verbatim
the Masoretic Hebrew text or any known text for that matter in Lk. 4:18-19. He
did not quote Isa. 61:1f (“And the opening of the prison to them that are
bound”) because He rendered it “and the recovering of sight to the blind”
(v. 18). Even though His citation was in agreement with the LXX at this
point, it is certain that He was not quoting the LXX. The Lord added
clause g (“to set at liberty them that are bruised” [Targum of Isa.
58:6]) which is not found in either the MT or LXX at this point.
Furthermore, He used a different infinitive than that of the LXX in
clause c (LXX: euangelisasthai vs. TR: euangeliszesthai). And
it is certain that the CT did not quote the LXX since it omits clause d
(“he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted”), which clause occurs in the LXX
and TR.
Third, Christ’s expanded and inspired interpretation of Isa.
61:1-2a not only becomes part of the canonical Scripture, but is also an object
lesson in bibliological interpretation, enhancing one’s understanding of the
Lord’s eschatology. Dispensationally, He divided up Isaiah’s prophecy of the
coming of the Lord into the first coming and the second coming (cf. Lk. 4:21).
The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isa. 61:1-2a with His first
advent, and will fulfill Isa. 61:2b with His second advent in connection with
the conclusion of “the day of vengeance” (Isa. 61:2b; cf. 34:8; 35:4;
63:4). Christ’s employment of targuming OT Hebrew texts gave further
complementation to the interpretation of these texts and additional contribution
to the whole of Christian theology.
Summary of the Two Views
As the student of Scripture juxtapositions View One with
View Two, it is biblically clear that View One has no biblical merit, and that
View Two has full scriptural support and full harmony with bibliological truth
(see Chart # 2). View One must argue that the Lord did not promise to preserve
His words intact for future generations, and that in fact He did not preserve
them. Next, View One must argue that the Greek OT LXX had the history,
character and purity to be the source from which the Son of God would draw his
OT quotes. Then View One must demonstrate, unambiguously, that the Lord and the
Apostles employed the LXX to evangelize Jews or Gentiles. Next, this
view must completely ignore the expression gegraptai (“it is written”).
Then View One must use the expression “quote” to mean “loose citation,” since
there is really very little direct, verbatim quoting practiced by Christ or the
Apostles. Then this position must rationalize this extremely weak bibliology of
our Lord by stating that since the Savior had such a low view of His Bible the
Christian may have that same low view. This view then propagates the
blasphemous notion that all texts, manuscripts and translations make up the
on-going, evolving word of God, which culmination for completion is hampered
only by newer archaeological finds and the latest theories in Text Criticism.
View Two, which teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ and the
Apostles targumed the OT, builds its biblical defense on the interpretation of
many Scriptures. The Lord believed the OT words were preserved (Ps. 12:6-7; Mt.
4:4) including the Hebrew jots and tittles (Mt. 5:18), and referred to the
three-fold division of the Tanak (Lk. 11:51 and 24:44). He and the
Apostles never used the LXX to evangelize Jews or Gentiles, but instead
employed the Hebrew text for Jews and the Greek NT words for Gentiles (Mk.
7:26-30; Acts 2:42). In targuming the Hebrew OT, they expanded God’s NT
revelation to include not only His NT doctrine but this divinely-complemented OT
explanation within the text of the NT Scriptures.
Conclusion
The prevailing consensus of biblical scholarship maintains
that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the LXX as their OT Scriptures.
These scholars must insist upon this untenable assumption to justify their
biblically weak position on the Hebrew and Greek texts and their subsequent
translations. The Bible refutes this ancient and popular false notion.
Instead, Christ and the Apostles had the preserved Hebrew words intact in their
possession and preached from them. In addition, they expanded the text of
Scripture by giving their inspired Targums of various OT Hebrew
passages. These Targums were recorded by the writers of Scripture in the
Gospels, Acts and the Epistles. This interpretation of the biblical phenomenon
denies that the Lord used an inferior translation such as the LXX for His
OT Bible, and instead posits that He utilized the preserved Hebrew text and
expanded on it with inspired Targums. This high view of bibliology
requires Christians of all centuries and languages to recognize that God
preserved His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words in the original languages and
that these preserved words must be the foundation for all bibliological truth,
including all translational efforts of Scripture. “Yea, let God be true, but
every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy
sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged” (Rom 3:4).
|
