What do you think?
Rate this book
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible
How did the New Testament writers and the earliest Christians come to adopt the Jewish scriptures as their first Old Testament? And why are our modern Bibles related more to the Rabbinic Hebrew Bible than to the Greek Bible of the early Church?
The Septuagint, the name given to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures between the third century BC and the second century AD, played a central role in the Bible's history. Many of the Hebrew scriptures were still evolving when they were translated into Greek, and these Greek translations, along with several new Greek writings, became Holy Scripture in the early Church.
Yet, gradually the Septuagint lost its place at the heart of Western Christianity. At the end of the fourth century, one of antiquity's brightest minds rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Bible of the rabbis. After Jerome, the Septuagint never regained the position it once had. Timothy Michael Law recounts the story of the Septuagint's origins, its relationship to the Hebrew Bible, and the adoption and abandonment of the first Christian Old Testament.
The Septuagint, the name given to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures between the third century BC and the second century AD, played a central role in the Bible's history. Many of the Hebrew scriptures were still evolving when they were translated into Greek, and these Greek translations, along with several new Greek writings, became Holy Scripture in the early Church.
Yet, gradually the Septuagint lost its place at the heart of Western Christianity. At the end of the fourth century, one of antiquity's brightest minds rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Bible of the rabbis. After Jerome, the Septuagint never regained the position it once had. Timothy Michael Law recounts the story of the Septuagint's origins, its relationship to the Hebrew Bible, and the adoption and abandonment of the first Christian Old Testament.
228 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 19, 2013
57 people are currently reading
527 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
May 29, 2020
"When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible" is a truly wonderful book that will delight any layperson interested in the Septuagint Bible which still constitutes the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church and which was also used by the Roman Catholic Church until 405 CE when St. Jerome completed his Latin Vulgate Bible based on the Hebrew Bible used in the Jewish Synagogues during fourth century. The Septuagint is also the source of the Apocryphal Books found in the Roman Catholic Bible and deleted by the Protestant Churches because they were not in the official Jewish Bible.
Law argues very eloquently that the Septuagint should be considered divine revelation; that the Apocrypha belong in any Christian Bible; and that the Septuagint should be the prime source for the Old Testament of the Christian Old Testament. He argues that many of the expressions and doctrines fundamental to Christianity originated in the Septuagint. It is in the Septuagint where the term "Kristos" was first applied to the Messiah. It is also the only version of the Old Testament version to anticipate that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Nonetheless, Law makes it clear that prime justification for the legitimacy of the Septuagint is that it was the Bible read by the authors of the new Testament. All of the Evangelists quoted form the Septuagint. St. Paul not only quoted from it but found the basis in it for many of the Christian doctrines that he developed. Notably St. Paul used passages from Septuagint's Hosea, Isaiah and Deuteronomy to justify including the Gentiles in Christ's salvation. St. Paul also used the Septuagint's Isaiah and Deuteronomy to argue that Christ had won a "victory over death".
Law also points out that during the era of Christ and the New Testament authors, there was so eno Canonical Hebrew Bible hence there was no reason why the Greek-speaking Jews should not have been using the Septuagint. The Canonical Jewish Bible which currently provides the basis for translation for the Catholic Church (the Masoretic text) was finalized in the seventh century.
Law devotes a major part of his book showing that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly strengthened the case for the legitimacy of the Septuagint. A major argument against the Apocryphal Books proposed during the Reformation was that they had must have been composed in Greek as no Hebrew or Aramaic versions were known. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have revealed either Hebrew or Aramaic sources exist for all of the Apocryphal books except Maccabees. A second major argument against the Septuagint first put forward by Origen in the third century was that the Greek text of the Septuagint differed significantly in many places from the text of the Hebrew Bible even for those books that were not in the Apocryphal category. The Dead Scrolls however include Hebrew documents which align very well with the Greek text of the Septuagint. May’s conclusion is that there are no translation errors or distortions in the Septuagint. Rather the compilers of the Septuagint living in an era with no Jewish Canon and simply used documents that differed from those of the Masoretic Bible that the Jews adopted much later as their canon.
May notes that St. Augustine had raged a polemical battle with St. Jerome for having abandoned the Greek Septuagint in favour of Hebrew texts. While still acknowledging the Masoretic texts posses a certain legitimacy, May comes down on the side of St. Augustine arguing that the Septuagint was divinely inspired and should be the prime source for the Old Testament of any modern Christian Bible.
Law argues very eloquently that the Septuagint should be considered divine revelation; that the Apocrypha belong in any Christian Bible; and that the Septuagint should be the prime source for the Old Testament of the Christian Old Testament. He argues that many of the expressions and doctrines fundamental to Christianity originated in the Septuagint. It is in the Septuagint where the term "Kristos" was first applied to the Messiah. It is also the only version of the Old Testament version to anticipate that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Nonetheless, Law makes it clear that prime justification for the legitimacy of the Septuagint is that it was the Bible read by the authors of the new Testament. All of the Evangelists quoted form the Septuagint. St. Paul not only quoted from it but found the basis in it for many of the Christian doctrines that he developed. Notably St. Paul used passages from Septuagint's Hosea, Isaiah and Deuteronomy to justify including the Gentiles in Christ's salvation. St. Paul also used the Septuagint's Isaiah and Deuteronomy to argue that Christ had won a "victory over death".
Law also points out that during the era of Christ and the New Testament authors, there was so eno Canonical Hebrew Bible hence there was no reason why the Greek-speaking Jews should not have been using the Septuagint. The Canonical Jewish Bible which currently provides the basis for translation for the Catholic Church (the Masoretic text) was finalized in the seventh century.
Law devotes a major part of his book showing that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly strengthened the case for the legitimacy of the Septuagint. A major argument against the Apocryphal Books proposed during the Reformation was that they had must have been composed in Greek as no Hebrew or Aramaic versions were known. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have revealed either Hebrew or Aramaic sources exist for all of the Apocryphal books except Maccabees. A second major argument against the Septuagint first put forward by Origen in the third century was that the Greek text of the Septuagint differed significantly in many places from the text of the Hebrew Bible even for those books that were not in the Apocryphal category. The Dead Scrolls however include Hebrew documents which align very well with the Greek text of the Septuagint. May’s conclusion is that there are no translation errors or distortions in the Septuagint. Rather the compilers of the Septuagint living in an era with no Jewish Canon and simply used documents that differed from those of the Masoretic Bible that the Jews adopted much later as their canon.
May notes that St. Augustine had raged a polemical battle with St. Jerome for having abandoned the Greek Septuagint in favour of Hebrew texts. While still acknowledging the Masoretic texts posses a certain legitimacy, May comes down on the side of St. Augustine arguing that the Septuagint was divinely inspired and should be the prime source for the Old Testament of any modern Christian Bible.
October 29, 2013
I am primarily a student of the New Testament. Now, it's not because I dislike the Hebrew Bible, or find it irrelevant, or anything like that. Rather, I've realized the need to specialize. There is so much to study, that if I am to make any progress, then I need to commit to a specific field. That field has been early Christianity.
Thus, when I read Timothy Law's new book, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, I was approaching a topic both familiar and foreign.
Law introduces his readers to the Septuagint through a broad chronological narrative. He begins with the early formation of the Hebrew Bible and it's subsequent translation into Greek, then charts out the textual environment of the 2nd Temple period and finally chronicles the role and significance of the Septuagint in early Christianity.
Law makes a few points that are worth of consideration. First, he argues for a vast plurality of Jewish scriptures in the early 2nd Temple period. There was no closed canon of authoritative texts, "To be candid: before the Bible, there was no Bible" (Pp. 19). According to Law, there were a variety, perhaps even a large variety, of Jewish scriptural traditions to choose from. The Septuagint, likely reflects one of those variant traditions. And these variant traditions actually contain different theological visions.
Second, Law insists that the early Church, as found in the New Testament, relied almost exclusively on the Septuagint as their scripture - including books that are now excluded from the traditional Protestant canon. Because of Law's understanding of the Septuagint as a theological vision different from the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, this influence is extremely significant. The early Christians were affected by the Septuagint in a way that they would not have been, if they had utilized the Masoretic text tradition.
Third and last, the Septuagint were the scriptures of the church until Jerome. For the first four centuries of the Christianity there was no concern with getting back to the "original" Hebrew text. The Septuagint was understood as the message of God to the Church. Jerome challenged this, and largely due to Christian-Jewish polemics, he won the day.
There is much to be commended in Law's assessment. He addresses and issue of extreme significance that has long been ignored in Western Christianity. His writing his strong and engaging. The narrative format was especially good, and the time range he chose to cover was well selected. As one who prior to this book was relatively ignorant of the Septuagint's origin, I now feel well acquainted. Law's argument for the Septuagint's return as an authoritative text is persuasive and dissenters will be hard-pressed to deny it a place in the Church when it proved the text for our forefathers.
That said, this book is certainly not without its faults. In service to his larger project, Law overstates the plurality of OT traditions in the first few centuries prior to Christ. He even seems to recognize this, as he qualifies previous statements and often appears to contradict earlier assertions. It's understandable, though, due to the great difficulty of introducing readers to a highly complex subject. However, this weakness plagues the first half of the text. I was often confused when he would tip his hat to the stability of the scriptural tradition, and then subsequently undermine the claim. Readers may be left unclear of what to think.
Likewise, Law did little to back his claim of significantly different theological visions in the multiple OT forms. Because of this, many will find the issue largely irrelevant to current theological thought.
And lastly, Law's depiction of Jerome was a bit heavy handed. He clearly cast Augustine as the hero and Jerome as the Villain. While I understood the impossibility of unbiased history, it seemed that his portrayal was harmed by his underlying purpose.
In conclusion, this is certainly a book worth reading. It will challenge most everyone who takes it seriously, and will likely call into question many assumptions held about canon formation and the Hebrew Bible. Though it has its weaknesses, and some rather discomforting, I'd still recommend it as an engaging introduction to a very important subject.
NOTE: This book was provided free of charge from Oxford University Press in exchange for an honest review.
Thus, when I read Timothy Law's new book, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, I was approaching a topic both familiar and foreign.
Law introduces his readers to the Septuagint through a broad chronological narrative. He begins with the early formation of the Hebrew Bible and it's subsequent translation into Greek, then charts out the textual environment of the 2nd Temple period and finally chronicles the role and significance of the Septuagint in early Christianity.
Law makes a few points that are worth of consideration. First, he argues for a vast plurality of Jewish scriptures in the early 2nd Temple period. There was no closed canon of authoritative texts, "To be candid: before the Bible, there was no Bible" (Pp. 19). According to Law, there were a variety, perhaps even a large variety, of Jewish scriptural traditions to choose from. The Septuagint, likely reflects one of those variant traditions. And these variant traditions actually contain different theological visions.
Second, Law insists that the early Church, as found in the New Testament, relied almost exclusively on the Septuagint as their scripture - including books that are now excluded from the traditional Protestant canon. Because of Law's understanding of the Septuagint as a theological vision different from the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, this influence is extremely significant. The early Christians were affected by the Septuagint in a way that they would not have been, if they had utilized the Masoretic text tradition.
Third and last, the Septuagint were the scriptures of the church until Jerome. For the first four centuries of the Christianity there was no concern with getting back to the "original" Hebrew text. The Septuagint was understood as the message of God to the Church. Jerome challenged this, and largely due to Christian-Jewish polemics, he won the day.
There is much to be commended in Law's assessment. He addresses and issue of extreme significance that has long been ignored in Western Christianity. His writing his strong and engaging. The narrative format was especially good, and the time range he chose to cover was well selected. As one who prior to this book was relatively ignorant of the Septuagint's origin, I now feel well acquainted. Law's argument for the Septuagint's return as an authoritative text is persuasive and dissenters will be hard-pressed to deny it a place in the Church when it proved the text for our forefathers.
That said, this book is certainly not without its faults. In service to his larger project, Law overstates the plurality of OT traditions in the first few centuries prior to Christ. He even seems to recognize this, as he qualifies previous statements and often appears to contradict earlier assertions. It's understandable, though, due to the great difficulty of introducing readers to a highly complex subject. However, this weakness plagues the first half of the text. I was often confused when he would tip his hat to the stability of the scriptural tradition, and then subsequently undermine the claim. Readers may be left unclear of what to think.
Likewise, Law did little to back his claim of significantly different theological visions in the multiple OT forms. Because of this, many will find the issue largely irrelevant to current theological thought.
And lastly, Law's depiction of Jerome was a bit heavy handed. He clearly cast Augustine as the hero and Jerome as the Villain. While I understood the impossibility of unbiased history, it seemed that his portrayal was harmed by his underlying purpose.
In conclusion, this is certainly a book worth reading. It will challenge most everyone who takes it seriously, and will likely call into question many assumptions held about canon formation and the Hebrew Bible. Though it has its weaknesses, and some rather discomforting, I'd still recommend it as an engaging introduction to a very important subject.
NOTE: This book was provided free of charge from Oxford University Press in exchange for an honest review.
December 31, 2023
While this work contains helpful historical information (like the debate between Augustine and Jerome over the Septuagint), the authors higher criticism and denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures makes it an unhelpful work. One quote will suffice to give the author's theology in a nutshell. "We can also see that the New testament authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the Hebrew, an unsettling reality but a reality nonetheless." This book would be better subtitled "The Author's Progressive Musings on the Greek Bible."
October 1, 2013
What Bible did the Apostles use to teach and evangelize the Gentiles and Hellenized Jews who spoke Greek? What did they use when they wrote their epistles? Many of them(if not all) used a Greek translation of the Hebrew, commonly called The Septuagint. In this book the author, Timothy Michael Law, explains the Septuagint's possible origins and talks about the significant differences that are found between this translation and the text of Hebrew manuscripts that we can reference. This part of the book was what I was most looking forward to, where he would deal with the Apostles quotations from this version against what our Hebrew text says. One of the most significant examples is found in the book of Hebrews, chapter 10 verse 5, where the writer is proving the sufficiency and necessity of Christ's sacrifice by quoting a portion of Psalm 40: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a BODY didst thou prepare for me…"(Heb 10:5 ASV emphasis added) But if you turn to Psalm 40:6 in basically any Old Testament of a Christian Bible, or any Tanakh(vs. 7 in the JPS), It will read something along these lines: "Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in; MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED: Burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required."(Psa 40:6 ASV emphasis added) This rendition takes away the prophetic statement about the Messiah's coming in the flesh. So either the translators of the Septuagint mis-translated this verse or someone mis-copied the Hebrew, and I believe it to be the latter case. As Law explains, "The Hebrew Bible in the editions we now use is often not the oldest form of the Hebrew text…in many cases the Septuagint provides the only access we have to the oldest form."
Timothy Law is pushing for a greater knowledge of the Septuagint amongst Christians, it being the Bible of the Apostles and of the early Church. As Law states, "The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old Testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course. Students thus graduate from schools that teach Christian history and theology without ever considering that the scriptures used by the New Testament writers and the first Old Testament of the Church is not the Hebrew Bible they spent time and money to study." I completely concur with him in this, but our assumptions move on from that belief in contradictory ways. Having been looking into the Apostles' use of the Septuagint for a year or two now, I was very excited about this book, but have been disappointed to a degree that I did not expect. This may sound odd, but I was extremely disappointed that Timothy Law turned out to be unbiased towards the Apostle's(I thought he was a professing Christian). From the beginning of the book and on the reader will find statements like this, "We can also see that the New testament authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the Hebrew, an unsettling reality but a reality nonetheless." and again, "….it is not insignificant that the apostle Paul and his later interpreters in the early church will employ these mistranslations in the reformation of Christian theology."
Mr. Law contradicts himself by those statements. He talks about how there was a plurality of variant readings in the Biblical texts in the days of the Apostles and so they could "choose whichever reading best suited their purposes to open up new avenues for biblical interpretation" but makes statements like "We also sometimes see the New Testament authors quoting what is unquestionably the Septuagint's mistranslation of the Hebrew, which is not to say they are 'wrong' by doing so…" These statements are quite confusing…the Apostles were right to use an 'unquestionably wrong' translation from a random manuscript among an alleged plurality of texts, any one of which could be right? And yet, despite not knowing what Hebrew manuscript the LXX translators used, and apparently ignoring the fact of the admitted antiquity of these translators' manuscripts, Mr. Law makes a judgment call and says they were wrong. I don't buy it. And also his statements about Matthew's use of the prophecy of the virgin birth are shocking(Matt 1:23, Isa. 7:14): "The Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Bible gives Matthew the textual 'proof' to connect Jesus to the prophecy." And this conclusion is apparently reached because the Hebrew word in our Hebrew texts allegedly does not mean 'virgin' but 'young girl', and since WE don't know of any ancient Hebrew manuscripts that read 'virgin' then the LXX translators didn't have one either. Again, this reasoning is absurd. Law states, "they were told in Greek that Jesus fulfilled the Greek Jewish scriptures, the Septuagint." And we are just supposed to assume that the majority of Hebrew texts(or all of them) in the days of Christ and the Apostles did not support Christianity.
Mr. Law seems to be okay with the idea that Christ and the Apostles fabricated Christianity, but I am not. And therefore, I cannot recommend this book.
I am very grateful to Oxford University Press for the review copy of this book(my review did not have to be favorable), and am very disappointed that I could not give it a good review.
Timothy Law is pushing for a greater knowledge of the Septuagint amongst Christians, it being the Bible of the Apostles and of the early Church. As Law states, "The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old Testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course. Students thus graduate from schools that teach Christian history and theology without ever considering that the scriptures used by the New Testament writers and the first Old Testament of the Church is not the Hebrew Bible they spent time and money to study." I completely concur with him in this, but our assumptions move on from that belief in contradictory ways. Having been looking into the Apostles' use of the Septuagint for a year or two now, I was very excited about this book, but have been disappointed to a degree that I did not expect. This may sound odd, but I was extremely disappointed that Timothy Law turned out to be unbiased towards the Apostle's(I thought he was a professing Christian). From the beginning of the book and on the reader will find statements like this, "We can also see that the New testament authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the Hebrew, an unsettling reality but a reality nonetheless." and again, "….it is not insignificant that the apostle Paul and his later interpreters in the early church will employ these mistranslations in the reformation of Christian theology."
Mr. Law contradicts himself by those statements. He talks about how there was a plurality of variant readings in the Biblical texts in the days of the Apostles and so they could "choose whichever reading best suited their purposes to open up new avenues for biblical interpretation" but makes statements like "We also sometimes see the New Testament authors quoting what is unquestionably the Septuagint's mistranslation of the Hebrew, which is not to say they are 'wrong' by doing so…" These statements are quite confusing…the Apostles were right to use an 'unquestionably wrong' translation from a random manuscript among an alleged plurality of texts, any one of which could be right? And yet, despite not knowing what Hebrew manuscript the LXX translators used, and apparently ignoring the fact of the admitted antiquity of these translators' manuscripts, Mr. Law makes a judgment call and says they were wrong. I don't buy it. And also his statements about Matthew's use of the prophecy of the virgin birth are shocking(Matt 1:23, Isa. 7:14): "The Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Bible gives Matthew the textual 'proof' to connect Jesus to the prophecy." And this conclusion is apparently reached because the Hebrew word in our Hebrew texts allegedly does not mean 'virgin' but 'young girl', and since WE don't know of any ancient Hebrew manuscripts that read 'virgin' then the LXX translators didn't have one either. Again, this reasoning is absurd. Law states, "they were told in Greek that Jesus fulfilled the Greek Jewish scriptures, the Septuagint." And we are just supposed to assume that the majority of Hebrew texts(or all of them) in the days of Christ and the Apostles did not support Christianity.
Mr. Law seems to be okay with the idea that Christ and the Apostles fabricated Christianity, but I am not. And therefore, I cannot recommend this book.
I am very grateful to Oxford University Press for the review copy of this book(my review did not have to be favorable), and am very disappointed that I could not give it a good review.
October 7, 2013
When God Spoke Greek is a scholarly work dealing with the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and the making of the Bible as a whole. How scholarly is it? Let's just say the book is 216 pages long, but 40 of those pages are notes, further readings, and the index. After a brief introduction, which includes terminology and the aim of the book, Dr. Law takes us on a brief but thorough history of the Septuagint. The book begins with how Greek became the language of choice and ends (as much as something with an open-ending can) with Jerome and Augustine.
As someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I was taught that Scripture never changed and the words on the pages of my Bible were the same words on the original scrolls. This way of looking at things and takes a great deal of faith to believe that there wasn't one translation or transcription error in all the centuries that past. It wasn't until years later after my conversion to Catholicism that I learned that this is a very naive perspective. Dr. Law elaborates on this very matter by explaining the use of textual plurality by early translators and transcribers By pulling from several different manuscripts, these men sought to show what the Scriptures were saying and convey it to us.
There are so many fascinating sections in this book that I had a hard time deciding on what to highlight as my favorite section of the book. Eventually, I decided that I greatly appreciated the numerous comparisons between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. The differences in the two texts range from a few words being different to whole books being rearranged. There are even some chapters that are different in length depending on which source you use. Where this would have once scandalized me, I feel more mature in my understanding and appreciation of the Bible. It was also enlightening to learn that the New Testament authors primarily read and used the Septuagint. Dr. Law includes examples of this in his book as well.
Overall, this was a very edifying book that increased my love for the Septuagint, which I didn't think was possible. It wasn't a quick read, like I originally expected. However, like most good things, it was worth the effort of a careful and slow reading. I hope Dr. Law continues to write books about the Septuagint and that each one will delve deeper and deeper into this beautiful text. If you're looking for an thoughtful and well put-together introduction to the Septuagint, you will want to read this book!
As someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I was taught that Scripture never changed and the words on the pages of my Bible were the same words on the original scrolls. This way of looking at things and takes a great deal of faith to believe that there wasn't one translation or transcription error in all the centuries that past. It wasn't until years later after my conversion to Catholicism that I learned that this is a very naive perspective. Dr. Law elaborates on this very matter by explaining the use of textual plurality by early translators and transcribers By pulling from several different manuscripts, these men sought to show what the Scriptures were saying and convey it to us.
There are so many fascinating sections in this book that I had a hard time deciding on what to highlight as my favorite section of the book. Eventually, I decided that I greatly appreciated the numerous comparisons between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. The differences in the two texts range from a few words being different to whole books being rearranged. There are even some chapters that are different in length depending on which source you use. Where this would have once scandalized me, I feel more mature in my understanding and appreciation of the Bible. It was also enlightening to learn that the New Testament authors primarily read and used the Septuagint. Dr. Law includes examples of this in his book as well.
Overall, this was a very edifying book that increased my love for the Septuagint, which I didn't think was possible. It wasn't a quick read, like I originally expected. However, like most good things, it was worth the effort of a careful and slow reading. I hope Dr. Law continues to write books about the Septuagint and that each one will delve deeper and deeper into this beautiful text. If you're looking for an thoughtful and well put-together introduction to the Septuagint, you will want to read this book!
August 8, 2025
I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand, it is work of deep and rigorous scholarship and elegant prose; however, I often found myself annoyed by what seemed to be a bias towards adopting the most complicated explanation of the formation and history of the scriptures. And, as I dug into some other sources that dealt with the early formation of the Hebrew Bible, I found some viable and simple alternative formation history for some books that Law assumes a complex and muddled formation as the only explanation.
However, all of that being said, I would recommend the book and I found it challenging in helpful ways to my overly simplistic understanding of where the Bible came from.
However, all of that being said, I would recommend the book and I found it challenging in helpful ways to my overly simplistic understanding of where the Bible came from.
May 26, 2014
The early church used the Septuagint as their scripture. Most of the Old Testament citations are from the Septuagint translation rather than the original Hebrew texts. Hebrew was not a dead language, but it was not common outside Palestine; by contrast, most of the Greco-Roman world spoke Greek. As the Christian Church became more and more Gentile, it only made sense that their Scripture was in a language they could read and understand.
This understanding was lost in the West, as the Western church transitioned from Greek to Latin. Following Jerome's translation of the scriptures into Latin, the use of Greek in the Church and society at large fell to nearly zero. It wasn't until the end of the middle ages and the emergence of the Renaissance that the humanists began looking "ad fontes" -- to the sources. In this case, the Greek sources.
When the Reformation began, informed by the Renaissance, it was decided that the vernacular translations needed to be from the sources -- which to them meant the Hebrew texts. Thus began the preference in the Protestant churches for the Masoretic Hebrew texts rather than the more ancient Septuagint. To the reformers, the variants between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Texts were the result of a bad Greek translation of the Hebrew original. The idea that the Hebrew texts may have been tampered with -- that they may have been revised and edited by the rabbis and the Masoretes -- never occurred to them.
Timothy Law's book does a good job of explaining how the early church came to use the Septuagint, and why that matters. He also explains how Origen's six-columned "Hexapla" project help dislodge the Septuagint from its prominent position, which led to Jerome's preference for the Hebrew over the Greek during his production of the Latin Vulgate, which became the bible used by the Latin Church, although the eastern Church maintained their reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.
This understanding was lost in the West, as the Western church transitioned from Greek to Latin. Following Jerome's translation of the scriptures into Latin, the use of Greek in the Church and society at large fell to nearly zero. It wasn't until the end of the middle ages and the emergence of the Renaissance that the humanists began looking "ad fontes" -- to the sources. In this case, the Greek sources.
When the Reformation began, informed by the Renaissance, it was decided that the vernacular translations needed to be from the sources -- which to them meant the Hebrew texts. Thus began the preference in the Protestant churches for the Masoretic Hebrew texts rather than the more ancient Septuagint. To the reformers, the variants between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Texts were the result of a bad Greek translation of the Hebrew original. The idea that the Hebrew texts may have been tampered with -- that they may have been revised and edited by the rabbis and the Masoretes -- never occurred to them.
Timothy Law's book does a good job of explaining how the early church came to use the Septuagint, and why that matters. He also explains how Origen's six-columned "Hexapla" project help dislodge the Septuagint from its prominent position, which led to Jerome's preference for the Hebrew over the Greek during his production of the Latin Vulgate, which became the bible used by the Latin Church, although the eastern Church maintained their reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.
February 26, 2018
Excellent. For Protestants or Orthodox who want to know the history of the Bible that the Apostles and Early Church Fathers deemed the authoritative Word of God and why.
February 6, 2025
The beginning delighted too much in unbelieving speculation and an overblowing of textual plurality; the second half or so, focusing on history, was phenomenal.
March 27, 2019
Law’s book is a much needed work to reinvigorate an interest in Septuagint studies within biblical scholarship. As an OT Major at a conservative evangelical seminary, I was fortunate to take a course in Septuagint studies and consequently I have always been open to further scholarship regarding the Septuagint.
I am not going to rehash or report on everything in this book. Other reviews on Goodreads do an excellent job reporting on Law’s arguments. Rather, I prefer to approach this review by considering the value of “When God Spoke Greek”. But I must suggest areas where Law’s argument almost devalued biblical studies.
First, Law’s emphasis on the need for Septuagint studies in modern biblical scholarship is well appreciated. According to Law, the place of the LXX in the period prior to Christianity was highly regarded. In fact, the LXX was the “Bible” for most of the world, acc to Law.
By inference, I surmise he would see the Septuagint as inspired as the Hebrew text, though they differ in translation and theology in some areas. Herein is where Law’s position devalues biblical studies. Either there is no such thing as the inspiration of Scriptures or inspiration is spread across a plurality of source texts as seen in the Septuagint as well as the Dead Scrolls. The book was very confusing on this point. If all these texts are equally inspired, then none of them are inspired.
Second, I thought Law’s refocusing the reader’s attention on the importance of the LXX to the writers of the NT was powerful. Law’s underlying argument was that the Hebrew text acc to the NT authors was not a priority as it is today or since the Reformation.
Law’s position is worthy of additional research, mostly because his argument was bolstered by many unproven assumptions and conjectures that would demand another 170 pg book to refute.
There is no way one can read this historical sketch of the development of the LXX, without demanding more studies on Law’s conclusions. When he placed verses from the OT, NT and the LXX side by side to demonstrate how the LXX was favored by NT writers, I wanted to see more exegesis of the quoted passages rather than relying on English comparative columns of text.
I often thought about Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. He was obviously adept at reading the Hebrew text. When Paul argued in the synagogues, did he use the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint? The same goes for the encounters Jesus had with the rabbinical authorities in the Temple. Did they argue from the Greek LXX or the traditional Hebrew text?
Was the LXX only quoted by NT writers because the entire NT was written in Koine Greek to reach a greater number of people in a Greek speaking world? Does this action assume the equality or priority of the LXX to the Hebrew canon or simply a cultural language accommodation to a Greek speaking gentile audience?
The number of assumptions about the growth of the Hebrew Bible is questionable. Was the Tenach still being composed in the second century BCE? Law made such statements as factual within his liberal biblical perspective. He simply put forth these ideas as facts without taking into account, excellent conservative biblical scholarship that strongly opposes his “factual assumptions.”
Third, I agree LXX Studies needs to be included in NT interpretation. Law hardly dealt with NT textual criticism and variant readings between the Tenach and the LXX. I wanted to consult the textual apparatus on many of the LXX verses he quoted to prove his point. Due to the brevity of his book, Law failed to deal with textual issues regarding the use of the LXX by the NT. Maybe he dealt with these issues in the large section of notes he includes. However, these textual matters are important enough to include in the main text.
His historical sketch of the use of the LXX by the church over and above the Hebrew text was helpful. The early church was sadly adverse to the Jewish people which included their extra biblical writings. I often wonder if the LXX took on an importance to early Christian fathers because they did not want to learn Hebrew nor were they fond of the Jewish people.
Making the Septuagint on an equal plane with the Hebrew text may have been an outgrowth of antisemitism in the early church. It was not until Jerome in the fifth century that any noted Christian theologian tempted to learn Hebrew. And Augustine argued for the importance of the LXX almost to the neglect of the Hebrew Bible. More was taking place here than just a preference for the Greek Bible.
We owe Law at least the recognition that more studies must be done regarding the plurality of biblical texts in the first century. There are a few conservative seminary and graduate schools that have a Septuagint Studies Major. But I am speaking of less than five. This needs to be changed. We have many fine Septuagint scholars who need to be recognized as we grapple with the influence of the LXX on the NT. This issue cannot be ignored.
I am not going to rehash or report on everything in this book. Other reviews on Goodreads do an excellent job reporting on Law’s arguments. Rather, I prefer to approach this review by considering the value of “When God Spoke Greek”. But I must suggest areas where Law’s argument almost devalued biblical studies.
First, Law’s emphasis on the need for Septuagint studies in modern biblical scholarship is well appreciated. According to Law, the place of the LXX in the period prior to Christianity was highly regarded. In fact, the LXX was the “Bible” for most of the world, acc to Law.
By inference, I surmise he would see the Septuagint as inspired as the Hebrew text, though they differ in translation and theology in some areas. Herein is where Law’s position devalues biblical studies. Either there is no such thing as the inspiration of Scriptures or inspiration is spread across a plurality of source texts as seen in the Septuagint as well as the Dead Scrolls. The book was very confusing on this point. If all these texts are equally inspired, then none of them are inspired.
Second, I thought Law’s refocusing the reader’s attention on the importance of the LXX to the writers of the NT was powerful. Law’s underlying argument was that the Hebrew text acc to the NT authors was not a priority as it is today or since the Reformation.
Law’s position is worthy of additional research, mostly because his argument was bolstered by many unproven assumptions and conjectures that would demand another 170 pg book to refute.
There is no way one can read this historical sketch of the development of the LXX, without demanding more studies on Law’s conclusions. When he placed verses from the OT, NT and the LXX side by side to demonstrate how the LXX was favored by NT writers, I wanted to see more exegesis of the quoted passages rather than relying on English comparative columns of text.
I often thought about Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. He was obviously adept at reading the Hebrew text. When Paul argued in the synagogues, did he use the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint? The same goes for the encounters Jesus had with the rabbinical authorities in the Temple. Did they argue from the Greek LXX or the traditional Hebrew text?
Was the LXX only quoted by NT writers because the entire NT was written in Koine Greek to reach a greater number of people in a Greek speaking world? Does this action assume the equality or priority of the LXX to the Hebrew canon or simply a cultural language accommodation to a Greek speaking gentile audience?
The number of assumptions about the growth of the Hebrew Bible is questionable. Was the Tenach still being composed in the second century BCE? Law made such statements as factual within his liberal biblical perspective. He simply put forth these ideas as facts without taking into account, excellent conservative biblical scholarship that strongly opposes his “factual assumptions.”
Third, I agree LXX Studies needs to be included in NT interpretation. Law hardly dealt with NT textual criticism and variant readings between the Tenach and the LXX. I wanted to consult the textual apparatus on many of the LXX verses he quoted to prove his point. Due to the brevity of his book, Law failed to deal with textual issues regarding the use of the LXX by the NT. Maybe he dealt with these issues in the large section of notes he includes. However, these textual matters are important enough to include in the main text.
His historical sketch of the use of the LXX by the church over and above the Hebrew text was helpful. The early church was sadly adverse to the Jewish people which included their extra biblical writings. I often wonder if the LXX took on an importance to early Christian fathers because they did not want to learn Hebrew nor were they fond of the Jewish people.
Making the Septuagint on an equal plane with the Hebrew text may have been an outgrowth of antisemitism in the early church. It was not until Jerome in the fifth century that any noted Christian theologian tempted to learn Hebrew. And Augustine argued for the importance of the LXX almost to the neglect of the Hebrew Bible. More was taking place here than just a preference for the Greek Bible.
We owe Law at least the recognition that more studies must be done regarding the plurality of biblical texts in the first century. There are a few conservative seminary and graduate schools that have a Septuagint Studies Major. But I am speaking of less than five. This needs to be changed. We have many fine Septuagint scholars who need to be recognized as we grapple with the influence of the LXX on the NT. This issue cannot be ignored.
Read
November 10, 2023neat, and very interesting!
February 1, 2022
When God Spoke Greek by Timothy Michael Law
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This is the second book I've read on the Septuagint this month. Unlike "Translation of the Seventy" by Michael Gallagher, this book seems to take the position that the Septuagint (aka the "LXX") constituted a literary tradition in its own right.
The Septuagint is a catch-all term for Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures written in approximately the second century BCE. Although these texts are still used as the Old Testament by the Eastern Orthodox Church, they are largely dismissed as "bad translations" by most popular sources, such as the annual revisiting of the claim that the Virgin Birth is based on a "poor translation" of "maiden."
Law's position is a bit more dramatic than that (or of Gallagher's book.) Law writes:
"We will soon encounter some remarkable differences between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This should be stated very clearly right away since the Septuagint translation is sometimes misjudged as merely a translation when it is more than that. In many places the messages contained in the Septuagint are different from what we have in the Hebrew Bible, a significance whose weight will be forced upon us when we see how New Testament authors and early Christian writers constructed their theological visions on the basis of the Septuagint. The divergent character of the Septuagint is not always a result of the ingenuity of its translators. Sometimes we see evidence that the Greek translation was produced from an alternative Hebrew text that has since been lost. The Septuagint and Hebrew Bible often reflect divergent traditions of scriptural texts in the same biblical books, and it is not always possible to discover if one was from an earlier time than another. Sometimes they are simply different, perhaps parallel traditions. Today most English Bible versions are based on a medieval edition of the Hebrew Bible. Until the last century many assumed the Hebrew scriptures existed only in this form preserved in the medieval edition, but most now recognize it reflects only one of several forms of the scriptures in circulation before the second century CE.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 19-20). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Similarly, the current version that is used as the "gold standard" is not a pristine and pure form that has existed from time immemorial:
"There is no question that the text of the Hebrew Bible we know today is very ancient. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with a renewed appreciation of the Septuagint, force us to adopt a new perspective: while the medieval Masoretic scribes preserved an ancient tradition, they transmitted only one scriptural tradition out of a number of divergent possibilities that existed before the second century CE. The earlier period was characterized by plurality, not uniformity. There is nothing at all mistaken in affirming that the Hebrew Bible in today’s editions reflects a very ancient tradition reaching back at least to the third century BCE and perhaps even earlier. But this is only part of the story. Before 1947 scholars usually explained the history of the Bible by referring to three main witnesses to, or “types” of, the Old Testament text: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint.4 The Masoretic Text actually refers not to a single text but to a group of manuscripts that have shared features.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 21-22). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
And:
"Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that the Hebrew Bible editions in our hands today, those based on the medieval Masoretic Text, do not represent the “original text” of the Bible. The greatest modern authority on the Hebrew textual tradition puts it bluntly: “One thing is clear, it should not be postulated that the Masoretic Text better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text.”9
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 23). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Law offers this interesting example, which most readers probably skip over:
"We can be absolutely certain that the story in the Septuagint is based on a Hebrew edition that reflects an earlier stage in the development of the tradition of this story, and the Hebrew Bible is a later expansion of that tradition. In the process of enlarging the story disturbances were introduced into the text but were left unresolved. Conscientious readers of the English Bible may have already noticed certain confusing aspects of the David and Goliath story that are there because the Hebrew Bible is used as the basis for the English translations. For example, both the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible tell how David is introduced to Saul in 16:17–23 as a harpist whom Saul loved so much that he made him his armor bearer. In 17:55–58, which is found only in the later Hebrew Bible, Saul oddly has no clue who David is. The famous story of the love shared between David and Jonathan (18:1–4) and Saul’s attempt to kill David when an evil spirit came upon him (18:10–11) were also later additions not found in the earlier version.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 30-31). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
It may be a bit disorienting to realize that the Hebrew text evolved from the translation of the LXX to the earliest Masoretic Texts ("MT"). Law offers some examples of this, such as this one from Ezekiel:
"The second difference is that 36:23c–38 are missing. This is a very rich passage in which God promises to give a new heart to the people, replacing theirs of stone, and to put his spirit within them; but it is difficult for modern readers to appreciate that this was not originally in the older Hebrew text or in the earliest Septuagint text.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 53). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
I've dropped into some of the issues that interest me, but this is a methodical book that covers the history and textual analysis of the document. In many ways, this book is more interesting than the Gallagher book, although, frankly, both should be read for a fuller treatment of the issue.
One area that I felt Law's book fell down was its treatment of the Deuterocanonical books ("DCB"). For some reason, Law refused to use the term "deuterocanonical" but, instead, refers to them by the Protestant pejorative term "apocryphal." Law provides a very nice survey of the DCB texts and even acknowledges that the Book of Wisdom provided Paul with the backbone of one of his arguments in Romans.
Given the loose canon that existed, Law suggests that the DCB may have continued to be treated as authoritative/inspired/canonical in Jewish communities outside of Judea even after the Judean community was narrowing the canon:
"There is no reason to believe the communities outside of Palestine did not continue using the other Hellenistic Jewish writings, including those now part of the Apocrypha. In fact, it has been argued that they did use other books, and we know from medieval debates that not all Jews accepted the scriptures that came from Palestine.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 83). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
It is useful to keep in mind that there was a lack of uniformity even within the lack of uniformity.
I found this to be a thoughtful and informative book.
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This is the second book I've read on the Septuagint this month. Unlike "Translation of the Seventy" by Michael Gallagher, this book seems to take the position that the Septuagint (aka the "LXX") constituted a literary tradition in its own right.
The Septuagint is a catch-all term for Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures written in approximately the second century BCE. Although these texts are still used as the Old Testament by the Eastern Orthodox Church, they are largely dismissed as "bad translations" by most popular sources, such as the annual revisiting of the claim that the Virgin Birth is based on a "poor translation" of "maiden."
Law's position is a bit more dramatic than that (or of Gallagher's book.) Law writes:
"We will soon encounter some remarkable differences between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This should be stated very clearly right away since the Septuagint translation is sometimes misjudged as merely a translation when it is more than that. In many places the messages contained in the Septuagint are different from what we have in the Hebrew Bible, a significance whose weight will be forced upon us when we see how New Testament authors and early Christian writers constructed their theological visions on the basis of the Septuagint. The divergent character of the Septuagint is not always a result of the ingenuity of its translators. Sometimes we see evidence that the Greek translation was produced from an alternative Hebrew text that has since been lost. The Septuagint and Hebrew Bible often reflect divergent traditions of scriptural texts in the same biblical books, and it is not always possible to discover if one was from an earlier time than another. Sometimes they are simply different, perhaps parallel traditions. Today most English Bible versions are based on a medieval edition of the Hebrew Bible. Until the last century many assumed the Hebrew scriptures existed only in this form preserved in the medieval edition, but most now recognize it reflects only one of several forms of the scriptures in circulation before the second century CE.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 19-20). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Similarly, the current version that is used as the "gold standard" is not a pristine and pure form that has existed from time immemorial:
"There is no question that the text of the Hebrew Bible we know today is very ancient. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with a renewed appreciation of the Septuagint, force us to adopt a new perspective: while the medieval Masoretic scribes preserved an ancient tradition, they transmitted only one scriptural tradition out of a number of divergent possibilities that existed before the second century CE. The earlier period was characterized by plurality, not uniformity. There is nothing at all mistaken in affirming that the Hebrew Bible in today’s editions reflects a very ancient tradition reaching back at least to the third century BCE and perhaps even earlier. But this is only part of the story. Before 1947 scholars usually explained the history of the Bible by referring to three main witnesses to, or “types” of, the Old Testament text: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint.4 The Masoretic Text actually refers not to a single text but to a group of manuscripts that have shared features.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 21-22). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
And:
"Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that the Hebrew Bible editions in our hands today, those based on the medieval Masoretic Text, do not represent the “original text” of the Bible. The greatest modern authority on the Hebrew textual tradition puts it bluntly: “One thing is clear, it should not be postulated that the Masoretic Text better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text.”9
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 23). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Law offers this interesting example, which most readers probably skip over:
"We can be absolutely certain that the story in the Septuagint is based on a Hebrew edition that reflects an earlier stage in the development of the tradition of this story, and the Hebrew Bible is a later expansion of that tradition. In the process of enlarging the story disturbances were introduced into the text but were left unresolved. Conscientious readers of the English Bible may have already noticed certain confusing aspects of the David and Goliath story that are there because the Hebrew Bible is used as the basis for the English translations. For example, both the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible tell how David is introduced to Saul in 16:17–23 as a harpist whom Saul loved so much that he made him his armor bearer. In 17:55–58, which is found only in the later Hebrew Bible, Saul oddly has no clue who David is. The famous story of the love shared between David and Jonathan (18:1–4) and Saul’s attempt to kill David when an evil spirit came upon him (18:10–11) were also later additions not found in the earlier version.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (pp. 30-31). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
It may be a bit disorienting to realize that the Hebrew text evolved from the translation of the LXX to the earliest Masoretic Texts ("MT"). Law offers some examples of this, such as this one from Ezekiel:
"The second difference is that 36:23c–38 are missing. This is a very rich passage in which God promises to give a new heart to the people, replacing theirs of stone, and to put his spirit within them; but it is difficult for modern readers to appreciate that this was not originally in the older Hebrew text or in the earliest Septuagint text.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 53). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
I've dropped into some of the issues that interest me, but this is a methodical book that covers the history and textual analysis of the document. In many ways, this book is more interesting than the Gallagher book, although, frankly, both should be read for a fuller treatment of the issue.
One area that I felt Law's book fell down was its treatment of the Deuterocanonical books ("DCB"). For some reason, Law refused to use the term "deuterocanonical" but, instead, refers to them by the Protestant pejorative term "apocryphal." Law provides a very nice survey of the DCB texts and even acknowledges that the Book of Wisdom provided Paul with the backbone of one of his arguments in Romans.
Given the loose canon that existed, Law suggests that the DCB may have continued to be treated as authoritative/inspired/canonical in Jewish communities outside of Judea even after the Judean community was narrowing the canon:
"There is no reason to believe the communities outside of Palestine did not continue using the other Hellenistic Jewish writings, including those now part of the Apocrypha. In fact, it has been argued that they did use other books, and we know from medieval debates that not all Jews accepted the scriptures that came from Palestine.
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 83). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
It is useful to keep in mind that there was a lack of uniformity even within the lack of uniformity.
I found this to be a thoughtful and informative book.
April 26, 2015
Law argues, persuasively at times, that English Bibles, in reliance on the Masoretic Text for their Old Testament translations, are out of step with the Bible that would have been known by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. The Bible of the first century Christians was not the Hebrew, but the LXX - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This would be important because there are some striking differences between the two in many places. Law argues that the LXX fell out of favor when Jerome preferred the Hebrew of the Rabbis, and that much has been lost in our understanding of the OT when the LXX is not given an important place in our translating and exegesis.
On the whole, I think Law's argument rings true. There are many overstatements and certain points that can be easily criticized, but largely Law is right to argue that the LXX needs to become a more important element of biblical study. An important and fascinating book.
On the whole, I think Law's argument rings true. There are many overstatements and certain points that can be easily criticized, but largely Law is right to argue that the LXX needs to become a more important element of biblical study. An important and fascinating book.
September 21, 2019
This is an interesting book. The author recently did his Ph.D. in Old Testament (Septuagint studies) at Oxford, so he definitely knows the latest discussions and developments in the field, which is evident in his footnotes. This book is two things at once: (1) an introduction to the Septuagint written for lay people who may know little about this burgeoning field, and (2) a plea for the church to return to taking the Septuagint more seriously as part of “the Christian Bible.” He successfully pulls off the first aim, and I am sympathetic with his plea, but I cannot really recommend this book, at least not without reservations. Timothy Law exaggerates the fluid nature of the Old Testament text during the period from 200 BC to AD 200. I think he is also historically wrong in his view that Jews and Christians during this time simply didn’t care about the textual diversity and fluidity of their sacred Scriptures.
August 17, 2013
A worthy introduction to the Septuagint. Law covers the relevant questions of the Septuagint's origin, development, relationship with Jewish scriptural tradition, canonicity, and historical use by major early Christian scholars and exegetes. This book straddles well the gap between the scholar and the uninitiated, which makes this an accessible work for a variety of readers. My only complaint is that a few of Law's source critical assumptions are presented without qualification early on in the book, but a critical reader can recognize his perspective and deal with it accordingly.
February 16, 2019
This a really helpful overview of the Septuagint - the “who, what, where, when, why, and how.”
It is very fascinating to see behind the formation of the Old Testament in general; essentially seeing “how the hotdog is made.” .
The chapters that really stood out to me were ch6 (brilliant overview of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal materials), Ch 8-9 (the NT use of the LXX).
Especially in regards to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal materials, this was really helpful for developing a wholistic view of scripture that didn’t make it into all of the canons. This is best summarised in Law’s words, “There is nothing intrinsic to the books that would hint that they should have been separated from the others, and this pejorative term (apocryphal) was applied long after they were written.” (58)
(Law also takes precautions to provide helpful definitions for both “scripture” and “canon;” the former being an “authoritative writing in a religious community.” The latter being “a catalog, a list of scriptural writings.”p120)
.
Ultimately Law works hard to discourage any grand narratives of one single edition of the Hebrew Old Testament falling from the heavens. He surveys how and why certain versions were held over others.
In light of this the reader is left with very good reasons to take the Septuagint much more seriously, and to explore big and bold questions about the theological effect of using one version against another - both as they were used in history, and also how they can be used in scholarship today.
It is very fascinating to see behind the formation of the Old Testament in general; essentially seeing “how the hotdog is made.” .
The chapters that really stood out to me were ch6 (brilliant overview of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal materials), Ch 8-9 (the NT use of the LXX).
Especially in regards to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal materials, this was really helpful for developing a wholistic view of scripture that didn’t make it into all of the canons. This is best summarised in Law’s words, “There is nothing intrinsic to the books that would hint that they should have been separated from the others, and this pejorative term (apocryphal) was applied long after they were written.” (58)
(Law also takes precautions to provide helpful definitions for both “scripture” and “canon;” the former being an “authoritative writing in a religious community.” The latter being “a catalog, a list of scriptural writings.”p120)
.
Ultimately Law works hard to discourage any grand narratives of one single edition of the Hebrew Old Testament falling from the heavens. He surveys how and why certain versions were held over others.
In light of this the reader is left with very good reasons to take the Septuagint much more seriously, and to explore big and bold questions about the theological effect of using one version against another - both as they were used in history, and also how they can be used in scholarship today.
August 21, 2018
Compelling history and description of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which the book ends by calling the Christian Old Testament or, alternatively, the 'Bible of the Church.' The two important points this book repeatedly makes are that (a) there existed, for centuries before Christ and for long afterwards, a variety of types and versions of several Scriptural books that (as given by the discoveries at Qumran) both Jews and Christians were not afraid to use all at once, or together; and that (b) the Greek translation was not only in wide use among the Jews of the dispersion, and later the Christian Church, but that it demonstrably comes from a different strand of tradition than the present received text of the Hebrew Bible and therefore can have a markedly different meaning in several, important places. That there was an independent Hebrew tradition that is represented now only by the Septuagint is something that is never mentioned in Scripture schools, of course, because they are focused entirely on the Hebrew Bible, as received. This book represents one of only a few that have recently popularised the study of the Septuagint for its own sake, and not merely to fill in gaps left by its sister, the Hebrew Bible.
May 17, 2021
Dr. Law is a Septuagint scholar who sets forth in this book to summarize for a popular audience the current consensus, debate, and discussion about the Septuagint and how it relates to our bible and Christianity. He draws on various fields and his own research to take the reader on a historical journey with the Septuagint.
Law opens with a defense of the reason for this book and an overview of the path he is going to chart through the story. He begins with the history of the Hellenization of the ancient world, prompted by the conquests of Alexandar the Great and the impact that had on thought and religion (and the Hebrew scriptures). Importantly, he discusses the impact it had on Jews.
After laying the background and setting, Law moves on to discussing the concept of the bible, or rather the scriptures in ancient Judaism/Israel with the question of how they would have viewed scripture and how the writing came to be. One of Law's major contentions in this book is that before the second century CE, there was a plurality of textual variants of the Hebrew scriptures and that this textual plurality did not bother the ancient Jews and early Christians. It was not until after the first century, probably spurred by the growing tensions between Jews and Christians, that the Jewish people standardized their scripture, choosing (whether intentionally or unintentionally) one text that would be copied at the loss of all the other variants. This text became the Masoretic text.
Throughout the book, Law argues against the traditional view of the OT, that it was set before the first century, and mounts a good deal of evidence that there was a considerable amount of flux in the scriptures in and around the turn of the era. This flux is not least demonstrated in the widespread use of the Septuagint, Greek copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the early church. This is especially important for the New Testament, as most, if not all, NT quotations can be explained in reference to a Greek text as opposed to a Hebrew text. And indeed, the Spetuigent was the bible of the early church for at least three centuries. It was not until Jerome (though the seeds were unintentionally sown with Origen) that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text started getting prioritized by certain segments of the church, through it was by no means uniform.
Law spends a great deal of time showing how the Septuigent text was drawn from and influenced the theology of both the New Testament writers and the church fathers. He argues that the trajectory of Christianity might have looked quite different if it were not for the Septuagint. He also highlights that even when the Hebrew text began to be prioritized, it was not without strong critics, not the least being St. Agustine. He ends with the debate between Jerome and Agustine over the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures.
Law's field is the Septuagint, and that being the case, I think he often overstates the data/conclusions. He undoubtedly highlights important points about the use of the Septiguent and raises important questions about the bible of the first Christians and how that should relate to us today. However, I think he overemphasizes points such as the idea that there was a wild variety of textual plurality for the old testament before the first century. He aptly demonstrates that there was indeed variety, but overstates the extent. I think the data point to a relatively fixed core of scriptures, with some variations between traditions, and a somewhat more flexible fringe of scriptures that were debated (some of which ended up in the canon and some of which did not).
Important aspects of this work are Law's highlighting of 1) the NT writer's and the early church's almost exclusive use of the Septuagint as their bible, 2) the use of non-canonical (in the protestant canon today) books as a source text for teaching and even scriptural witnesses, and 3) the fact that there does seem to be textual plurality before the second century CE for the Hebrew text. I think these (and other) points are important tensions that we as Christians should acknowledge and wrestle with. A good study on how we got the bible should include these areas and spend a fair amount of time on Septiguent.
Overall I thought this book was a very good introduction and overview of the Septuagint and would be a great resource for anyone studying the canon and the origin of the Bible. I learned a lot of useful information from this book, and perhaps more importantly, it raised important questions to think through and wrestle with. That being said, I do think Law overstates his case in certain places and presents certain academic interpretations as fact rather than hypotheses, which might throw off someone who is new to the discussion. I also think that Law's conclusion is missing something, perhaps a main goal or thesis that he is trying to make with the book.
If you are looking into the making of the bible, the canon, or the Septuagint, I would recommend this book.
Law opens with a defense of the reason for this book and an overview of the path he is going to chart through the story. He begins with the history of the Hellenization of the ancient world, prompted by the conquests of Alexandar the Great and the impact that had on thought and religion (and the Hebrew scriptures). Importantly, he discusses the impact it had on Jews.
After laying the background and setting, Law moves on to discussing the concept of the bible, or rather the scriptures in ancient Judaism/Israel with the question of how they would have viewed scripture and how the writing came to be. One of Law's major contentions in this book is that before the second century CE, there was a plurality of textual variants of the Hebrew scriptures and that this textual plurality did not bother the ancient Jews and early Christians. It was not until after the first century, probably spurred by the growing tensions between Jews and Christians, that the Jewish people standardized their scripture, choosing (whether intentionally or unintentionally) one text that would be copied at the loss of all the other variants. This text became the Masoretic text.
Throughout the book, Law argues against the traditional view of the OT, that it was set before the first century, and mounts a good deal of evidence that there was a considerable amount of flux in the scriptures in and around the turn of the era. This flux is not least demonstrated in the widespread use of the Septuagint, Greek copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the early church. This is especially important for the New Testament, as most, if not all, NT quotations can be explained in reference to a Greek text as opposed to a Hebrew text. And indeed, the Spetuigent was the bible of the early church for at least three centuries. It was not until Jerome (though the seeds were unintentionally sown with Origen) that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text started getting prioritized by certain segments of the church, through it was by no means uniform.
Law spends a great deal of time showing how the Septuigent text was drawn from and influenced the theology of both the New Testament writers and the church fathers. He argues that the trajectory of Christianity might have looked quite different if it were not for the Septuagint. He also highlights that even when the Hebrew text began to be prioritized, it was not without strong critics, not the least being St. Agustine. He ends with the debate between Jerome and Agustine over the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures.
Law's field is the Septuagint, and that being the case, I think he often overstates the data/conclusions. He undoubtedly highlights important points about the use of the Septiguent and raises important questions about the bible of the first Christians and how that should relate to us today. However, I think he overemphasizes points such as the idea that there was a wild variety of textual plurality for the old testament before the first century. He aptly demonstrates that there was indeed variety, but overstates the extent. I think the data point to a relatively fixed core of scriptures, with some variations between traditions, and a somewhat more flexible fringe of scriptures that were debated (some of which ended up in the canon and some of which did not).
Important aspects of this work are Law's highlighting of 1) the NT writer's and the early church's almost exclusive use of the Septuagint as their bible, 2) the use of non-canonical (in the protestant canon today) books as a source text for teaching and even scriptural witnesses, and 3) the fact that there does seem to be textual plurality before the second century CE for the Hebrew text. I think these (and other) points are important tensions that we as Christians should acknowledge and wrestle with. A good study on how we got the bible should include these areas and spend a fair amount of time on Septiguent.
Overall I thought this book was a very good introduction and overview of the Septuagint and would be a great resource for anyone studying the canon and the origin of the Bible. I learned a lot of useful information from this book, and perhaps more importantly, it raised important questions to think through and wrestle with. That being said, I do think Law overstates his case in certain places and presents certain academic interpretations as fact rather than hypotheses, which might throw off someone who is new to the discussion. I also think that Law's conclusion is missing something, perhaps a main goal or thesis that he is trying to make with the book.
If you are looking into the making of the bible, the canon, or the Septuagint, I would recommend this book.
November 12, 2020
Only good in the aspect that it made me question what I actually know about the formation of the Bible. Timothy Law, however, is a Class A Stinker.
Boy Needs Jesus.
Boy Needs Jesus.
June 6, 2025
Fantastic book. Totally changed my outlook on the Septuagint's importance for the church theologically.
March 30, 2017
Useful book that explores the historical and theological significance of the Septuagint. It makes two points very well. First, the Septuagint indisputably testifies to an alternative Hebrew text in existence before the canonical form of the Masoretic Text, which has been used as the basis for almost all exegetical and translation work since the Renaissance. Second, it is also undeniable that the Septuagint served as the only Old Testament of the Christian Church for several centuries and has continuing canonical relevance in the East. These two points raise a question: why continue to privilege the Masoretic Text for either scholarly or religious purposes?
As a popularization, I thought the book was a mixed success. It succeeded at being interesting, but not always at being as clear as a book on this level should be. The demands on the reader fluctuated quite a bit from chapter to chapter. Remarkably, it did not anywhere near the beginning (or anywhere at all?) address the issue of what exactly the Septuagint is. If I were to wander into a cave and find an ancient Greek manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, how would I know whether that manuscript is "the Septuagint" or something else? Given that the various translations of Hebrew books were made over the course of several centuries by unknown persons, what justifies referring to particular translations as collectively belonging to a single entity called the Septuagint? How do we know that second- or third-century Christians are quoting from the Septuagint, rather than from another Greek version? This kind of basic question just never gets answered, unless perhaps I skipped over it. Late in the book, the author cites Eusebius as a witness to multiple textual streams of the Septuagint, and he states that Origen's own edition of the Septuagint became normative soon after its creation. The author spent a lot of time discussing how there was no Bible before the late-antique canonical processes that created "the Bible." Was there a Septuagint before Origen's Septuagint?
As a popularization, I thought the book was a mixed success. It succeeded at being interesting, but not always at being as clear as a book on this level should be. The demands on the reader fluctuated quite a bit from chapter to chapter. Remarkably, it did not anywhere near the beginning (or anywhere at all?) address the issue of what exactly the Septuagint is. If I were to wander into a cave and find an ancient Greek manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, how would I know whether that manuscript is "the Septuagint" or something else? Given that the various translations of Hebrew books were made over the course of several centuries by unknown persons, what justifies referring to particular translations as collectively belonging to a single entity called the Septuagint? How do we know that second- or third-century Christians are quoting from the Septuagint, rather than from another Greek version? This kind of basic question just never gets answered, unless perhaps I skipped over it. Late in the book, the author cites Eusebius as a witness to multiple textual streams of the Septuagint, and he states that Origen's own edition of the Septuagint became normative soon after its creation. The author spent a lot of time discussing how there was no Bible before the late-antique canonical processes that created "the Bible." Was there a Septuagint before Origen's Septuagint?
January 9, 2016
An important book on the Septuagint and its impact on early Christianity, and thus Christianity today.
May 14, 2023
About 1700 years ago the Western (Latin) Church broke with Christian tradition, and moved away from the Greek version of the bible known as the Septuagint, to prefer the Hebrew version of the Old Testament (ie the Mazoretic text).
There was some controversy at the time, as this was arguably a serious breach with the Apostolic Tradition which the Church had inherited. But it was justified on the assumption that the Greek bible was just a translation of the Hebrew: a translation that was of variable quality as it departs from the Hebrew in significant ways. So, Western Christianity thought that it was right to prioritise the Hebrew version of biblical books, as the authentic version of Scripture.
That attitude has existed for the last 1700 years. But in the last few decades a very different picture has begun to emerge. Since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumram (and other similar textual fragments across the region) it is now beginning to look as if the Septuagint was not just a bad translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is now looking as if the Hebrew bible was not finalised until around the Second Century CE, and so the Septuagint may have translated an alternative version of the Hebrew bible.
In this book, the author takes us through the evidence and shows examples of ancient Hebrew textual fragments which suggest that there were at least four versions of biblical books 2000 years ago. There was the Mazoretic Hebrew text which we know today as the Hebrew Bible. There were Septuagint(s) versions. There was a Samaritan Pentateuch and there were other versions which can be seen in textual fragments at Qumram, diverging from the Mazoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan versions.
Some of those ancient Hebrew fragments agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew bible. In Acts 7.14 Jacob is said to have 75 descendants. This agrees with the Septuagint but in the Hebrew bible he only has 70 descendants. A Hebrew fragment at Qumram agrees with 75 descendants.
Some of those ancient Hebrew fragments at Qumram agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch. In Acts 7.4 Stephen says that Abraham left for Haran after his father died. In the Hebrew bible Abrahams father dies 60 years after he departs (Gen 11.32) but a fragment was found at Qumram agreeing with the Samaritan version.
With (arguably) only half of the textual fragments at Qumram agreeing with the current Hebrew bible (Chapter 3), it shows that there was a much greater diversity of ancient biblical texts than anyone has hitherto realised. The idea that God dictated a specific biblical text, which has been preserved ever since, is very difficult to make sense of. Instead we have multiple variants with significant differences in the books of Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Esther and Daniel. There are smaller differences in at least 15-24 of the 39 Protocanonical biblical books.
What all this means for modern Christianity (and Judaism) is that there is a very serious question about whether they have been correct to think that there is a single inspired version of Scripture represented by the (modern) Hebrew bible. If alternative versions of the bible existed in Hebrew (Septuagint) versions 2000 years ago, don’t those versions (like the Septuagint) also have a claim to be recognised as inspired Scripture?
This is a fascinating book, which presents a lot of data and evidence, and it does so in fluid way which is easily accessible to non-specialist readers.
However, there are occasional misprints in the book, as well as a few errors when the author is commenting on Patristics, which is outside of his area of textual specialism. For example, in chapter 7 Augustine is cited as the author of the Speculum, but that text is now recognised to be by someone else. There is also a reference to the fifth century Gelasian Decree as restating the Carthaginian biblical Canon of 419, but the significance of the Gelasian Decree is that it purports to restate Pope Damasus’ Council of Rome decree on the biblical Canon c.382.
Apart from minor issues like that, this is a thought provoking book which should make any Christian or Jew pause and ponder some very fundamental questions about their beliefs about their Scriptures.
There was some controversy at the time, as this was arguably a serious breach with the Apostolic Tradition which the Church had inherited. But it was justified on the assumption that the Greek bible was just a translation of the Hebrew: a translation that was of variable quality as it departs from the Hebrew in significant ways. So, Western Christianity thought that it was right to prioritise the Hebrew version of biblical books, as the authentic version of Scripture.
That attitude has existed for the last 1700 years. But in the last few decades a very different picture has begun to emerge. Since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumram (and other similar textual fragments across the region) it is now beginning to look as if the Septuagint was not just a bad translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is now looking as if the Hebrew bible was not finalised until around the Second Century CE, and so the Septuagint may have translated an alternative version of the Hebrew bible.
In this book, the author takes us through the evidence and shows examples of ancient Hebrew textual fragments which suggest that there were at least four versions of biblical books 2000 years ago. There was the Mazoretic Hebrew text which we know today as the Hebrew Bible. There were Septuagint(s) versions. There was a Samaritan Pentateuch and there were other versions which can be seen in textual fragments at Qumram, diverging from the Mazoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan versions.
Some of those ancient Hebrew fragments agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew bible. In Acts 7.14 Jacob is said to have 75 descendants. This agrees with the Septuagint but in the Hebrew bible he only has 70 descendants. A Hebrew fragment at Qumram agrees with 75 descendants.
Some of those ancient Hebrew fragments at Qumram agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch. In Acts 7.4 Stephen says that Abraham left for Haran after his father died. In the Hebrew bible Abrahams father dies 60 years after he departs (Gen 11.32) but a fragment was found at Qumram agreeing with the Samaritan version.
With (arguably) only half of the textual fragments at Qumram agreeing with the current Hebrew bible (Chapter 3), it shows that there was a much greater diversity of ancient biblical texts than anyone has hitherto realised. The idea that God dictated a specific biblical text, which has been preserved ever since, is very difficult to make sense of. Instead we have multiple variants with significant differences in the books of Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Esther and Daniel. There are smaller differences in at least 15-24 of the 39 Protocanonical biblical books.
What all this means for modern Christianity (and Judaism) is that there is a very serious question about whether they have been correct to think that there is a single inspired version of Scripture represented by the (modern) Hebrew bible. If alternative versions of the bible existed in Hebrew (Septuagint) versions 2000 years ago, don’t those versions (like the Septuagint) also have a claim to be recognised as inspired Scripture?
This is a fascinating book, which presents a lot of data and evidence, and it does so in fluid way which is easily accessible to non-specialist readers.
However, there are occasional misprints in the book, as well as a few errors when the author is commenting on Patristics, which is outside of his area of textual specialism. For example, in chapter 7 Augustine is cited as the author of the Speculum, but that text is now recognised to be by someone else. There is also a reference to the fifth century Gelasian Decree as restating the Carthaginian biblical Canon of 419, but the significance of the Gelasian Decree is that it purports to restate Pope Damasus’ Council of Rome decree on the biblical Canon c.382.
Apart from minor issues like that, this is a thought provoking book which should make any Christian or Jew pause and ponder some very fundamental questions about their beliefs about their Scriptures.
August 4, 2025
I picked up this book because it was recommended by a Catholic theologian I follow to better understand the importance and historical significance of the Septuagint.
This book does a great job of explaining the significance of the Septuagint in the development of Jewish and early Christian thought as well as dispelling common misconceptions about it in comparison to the Masoretic text.
Law highlights that the Jewish canon was not settled at or before the time of Christ as historical Protestants have argued but that the confines of scripture were still fluid at least into the 2nd century AD. Books like Esther were still being debated. “The forms that later became biblical books were in an extraordinary state of fluctuation between the third century CE and the second CE”. He also insists, based on manuscript evidence, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls, that there were multiple canon traditions in Jewish thought into the 2nd Century AD.
Law also notes that it is clear from manuscript evidence that the translators who made the Septuagint were translating from a different Hebrew source than the one used to build the Masoretic text, indicating further diversity in what would become the Jewish canon. He also notes that the Masoretic text is actually a worse translation when it comes to some books like 1 Samuel and that the Septuagint has been used to clear up errors.
He also shows that the New Testament authors primarily used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament, indicating that they were at least reading out of the Greek translation of the Old Testament that contains the Deuterocanonical books (or the books that Protestants call the Apocrphya and books that both Catholics and Protestants reject).
He notes that Jewish canon lists do not mean that the question of canonicity was settled across all Jewish groups. Protestants will often site the 24 book canon of the Old Testament, assuming that it amounts to the 39 book canon of the current Protestant Old Testament, but according to Law, “there is no way to prove this and no way of knowing whether some of the books that made up the twenty-four books were books like the Letter of Jeremiah or Sirach in place of books like Esther and Ecclesiastes”. He also notes that Tobit and Sirach were likely originally composed in Hebrew, dispelling the common Protestant objection that the deuterocanonicals should not be included on the basis of them not being originally written in Hebrew.
Protestants will also cite canon lists from pre-Nicene Jews and Christians to argue for their canon, but, as Law notes, this does not mean that the canon was settled and they still do not match the Protestant canon exactly. It indicates that there were still debates on what books were in and which were out. Protestants will cite Melito of Sardis as providing the first Christian Old Testament canon list, but the problem is that he leaves out Esther and it is unclear as to whether Baruch and The Wisdom of Solomon are included. St. Athanasius is also mentioned as providing a canon list, but his canonical list included Baruch and The Letter of Jeremiah, again not corresponding perfectly to the Protestant canon. Finally, Law notes that “the canon of the Old Testament known today by Protestants was not found in the exact same form for more than fifteen hundred years of Christian history” but that the Catholic canon in its current form began to surface with St. Augustine and was affirmed in several regional councils in the 4th and 5th century.
He concludes with discussing Jerome’s use of the Hebrew instead of Septuagint in creating the Latin Vulgate and the debates that transpired between him and Augustine on the Septuagint. Augustine’s view of the Septuagint has largely been vindicated but does not take away the significance Jerome’s contribution to the Church.
Overall, an excellent book on the history of Christian and Jewish thought when it comes to the canon and the importance of the Septuagint.
This book does a great job of explaining the significance of the Septuagint in the development of Jewish and early Christian thought as well as dispelling common misconceptions about it in comparison to the Masoretic text.
Law highlights that the Jewish canon was not settled at or before the time of Christ as historical Protestants have argued but that the confines of scripture were still fluid at least into the 2nd century AD. Books like Esther were still being debated. “The forms that later became biblical books were in an extraordinary state of fluctuation between the third century CE and the second CE”. He also insists, based on manuscript evidence, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls, that there were multiple canon traditions in Jewish thought into the 2nd Century AD.
Law also notes that it is clear from manuscript evidence that the translators who made the Septuagint were translating from a different Hebrew source than the one used to build the Masoretic text, indicating further diversity in what would become the Jewish canon. He also notes that the Masoretic text is actually a worse translation when it comes to some books like 1 Samuel and that the Septuagint has been used to clear up errors.
He also shows that the New Testament authors primarily used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament, indicating that they were at least reading out of the Greek translation of the Old Testament that contains the Deuterocanonical books (or the books that Protestants call the Apocrphya and books that both Catholics and Protestants reject).
He notes that Jewish canon lists do not mean that the question of canonicity was settled across all Jewish groups. Protestants will often site the 24 book canon of the Old Testament, assuming that it amounts to the 39 book canon of the current Protestant Old Testament, but according to Law, “there is no way to prove this and no way of knowing whether some of the books that made up the twenty-four books were books like the Letter of Jeremiah or Sirach in place of books like Esther and Ecclesiastes”. He also notes that Tobit and Sirach were likely originally composed in Hebrew, dispelling the common Protestant objection that the deuterocanonicals should not be included on the basis of them not being originally written in Hebrew.
Protestants will also cite canon lists from pre-Nicene Jews and Christians to argue for their canon, but, as Law notes, this does not mean that the canon was settled and they still do not match the Protestant canon exactly. It indicates that there were still debates on what books were in and which were out. Protestants will cite Melito of Sardis as providing the first Christian Old Testament canon list, but the problem is that he leaves out Esther and it is unclear as to whether Baruch and The Wisdom of Solomon are included. St. Athanasius is also mentioned as providing a canon list, but his canonical list included Baruch and The Letter of Jeremiah, again not corresponding perfectly to the Protestant canon. Finally, Law notes that “the canon of the Old Testament known today by Protestants was not found in the exact same form for more than fifteen hundred years of Christian history” but that the Catholic canon in its current form began to surface with St. Augustine and was affirmed in several regional councils in the 4th and 5th century.
He concludes with discussing Jerome’s use of the Hebrew instead of Septuagint in creating the Latin Vulgate and the debates that transpired between him and Augustine on the Septuagint. Augustine’s view of the Septuagint has largely been vindicated but does not take away the significance Jerome’s contribution to the Church.
Overall, an excellent book on the history of Christian and Jewish thought when it comes to the canon and the importance of the Septuagint.
October 8, 2018
And he [the resurrected Christ] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures … Luke 24:44-45
Very few Christians today have any idea that the vast majority of our English translations of the Old Testament (and even the list of books included therein) differ in subtle, but significant ways from the Jewish texts that that were referenced by the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul. Those in the pews have likely never heard that the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament almost certainly come from Greek-language translations based on more than one stream of ancient Hebrew texts (some lost to us today), translations which are collectively known the Septuagint. The Septuagint was overwhelmingly read by Jews (and later, Christians) throughout the Mediterranean basin for centuries before and after Christ. And some might be upset to hear that most modern English-language Old Testaments are in fact based on Hebrew manuscript selections and traditions of Pharisaic Jewish rabbis and scholars that only solidified in the 2nd Century AD partly as a reaction against the Christian embrace of the Greek Jewish texts and the widespread preaching of what Christians had been taught about their integral messianic prophecies.
Timothy Michael Law, an Oxford-educated scholar, knows all these things. He knows them intimately, as evidenced by the book’s straight-forward and clear prose. No one without thorough knowledge of his subject can express such complicated ideas so succinctly. It’s not a work of theological speculation. Law says:
I have tried to do the work of the historian, and perhaps not the door is wide enough for the theologians to walk through it. (171)
Replete with scholarly endnotes and an expansive bibliography, one can see the depth of his research, but Law admits where his ideas are speculative attempts to push both the academic and Christian worlds to reevaluate the place of the Septuagint.
The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course.(3)
And it’s important to note that the Eastern church has uniquely maintained an emphasis on the Septuagint, following in the steps of Peter and Paul, Matthew and Luke. This allows us to better enter into the phronema (the mind of Christ, His Apostles, and His Church), giving us a better way to meet Christ in His own time and place and read the very words read by his intimate friends and companions.
Very few Christians today have any idea that the vast majority of our English translations of the Old Testament (and even the list of books included therein) differ in subtle, but significant ways from the Jewish texts that that were referenced by the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul. Those in the pews have likely never heard that the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament almost certainly come from Greek-language translations based on more than one stream of ancient Hebrew texts (some lost to us today), translations which are collectively known the Septuagint. The Septuagint was overwhelmingly read by Jews (and later, Christians) throughout the Mediterranean basin for centuries before and after Christ. And some might be upset to hear that most modern English-language Old Testaments are in fact based on Hebrew manuscript selections and traditions of Pharisaic Jewish rabbis and scholars that only solidified in the 2nd Century AD partly as a reaction against the Christian embrace of the Greek Jewish texts and the widespread preaching of what Christians had been taught about their integral messianic prophecies.
Timothy Michael Law, an Oxford-educated scholar, knows all these things. He knows them intimately, as evidenced by the book’s straight-forward and clear prose. No one without thorough knowledge of his subject can express such complicated ideas so succinctly. It’s not a work of theological speculation. Law says:
I have tried to do the work of the historian, and perhaps not the door is wide enough for the theologians to walk through it. (171)
Replete with scholarly endnotes and an expansive bibliography, one can see the depth of his research, but Law admits where his ideas are speculative attempts to push both the academic and Christian worlds to reevaluate the place of the Septuagint.
The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course.(3)
And it’s important to note that the Eastern church has uniquely maintained an emphasis on the Septuagint, following in the steps of Peter and Paul, Matthew and Luke. This allows us to better enter into the phronema (the mind of Christ, His Apostles, and His Church), giving us a better way to meet Christ in His own time and place and read the very words read by his intimate friends and companions.
Read
May 16, 2021"And he [the resurrected Christ] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45)
Very few Christians today have any idea that the vast majority of our English translations of the Old Testament (and even the list of books included therein) differ in subtle, but significant ways from the Jewish texts that that were referenced by the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul. Those in the pews have likely never heard that the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament almost
certainly come from Greek-language translations based on more than one stream of ancient Hebrew texts (some lost to us today), translations which are collectively known the Septuagint. The Septuagint was overwhelmingly read by Jews (and later, Christians) throughout the Mediterranean
basin for centuries before and after Christ. And some might be upset to hear that most modern English-language Old Testaments are in fact based on Hebrew manuscript selections and traditions of Pharisaic Jewish rabbis and scholars that only solidified in the second century A.D. partly as a reaction against the Christian embrace of the Greek Jewish texts and the widespread preaching of what Christians had been taught about their integral messianic prophecies.
Timothy Michael Law, an Oxford-educated scholar, knows all these things. He knows them intimately, as evidenced by the book’s straight-forward and clear prose. No one without thorough knowledge of his subject can express such complicated ideas so succinctly. It’s not a work of
theological speculation. Law says, “I have tried to do the work of the historian, and perhaps not the door is wide enough for the theologians to walk through it” (p. 171).
Replete with scholarly endnotes and an expansive bibliography, one can see the depth of his research, but Law admits where his ideas are speculative attempts to push both the academic and Christian worlds to reevaluate the place of the Septuagint. “The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course” (p. 3).
It’s important to note that the Eastern church has uniquely maintained an emphasis on the Septuagint, following in the steps of Peter and Paul, Matthew and Luke. This allows us to better enter into the phronema (the mind of Christ, His Apostles, and His Church), giving us a better way to meet Christ in His own time and place and read the very words read by his intimate friends and companions.
Very few Christians today have any idea that the vast majority of our English translations of the Old Testament (and even the list of books included therein) differ in subtle, but significant ways from the Jewish texts that that were referenced by the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul. Those in the pews have likely never heard that the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament almost
certainly come from Greek-language translations based on more than one stream of ancient Hebrew texts (some lost to us today), translations which are collectively known the Septuagint. The Septuagint was overwhelmingly read by Jews (and later, Christians) throughout the Mediterranean
basin for centuries before and after Christ. And some might be upset to hear that most modern English-language Old Testaments are in fact based on Hebrew manuscript selections and traditions of Pharisaic Jewish rabbis and scholars that only solidified in the second century A.D. partly as a reaction against the Christian embrace of the Greek Jewish texts and the widespread preaching of what Christians had been taught about their integral messianic prophecies.
Timothy Michael Law, an Oxford-educated scholar, knows all these things. He knows them intimately, as evidenced by the book’s straight-forward and clear prose. No one without thorough knowledge of his subject can express such complicated ideas so succinctly. It’s not a work of
theological speculation. Law says, “I have tried to do the work of the historian, and perhaps not the door is wide enough for the theologians to walk through it” (p. 171).
Replete with scholarly endnotes and an expansive bibliography, one can see the depth of his research, but Law admits where his ideas are speculative attempts to push both the academic and Christian worlds to reevaluate the place of the Septuagint. “The prejudice in the contemporary Church in favor of the rabbinic Hebrew Bible is startling, but not unexpected given that Christian educational institutions teach future scholars and clergy the Old testament exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, relegating the Septuagint to the sidelines of an upper-level elective course” (p. 3).
It’s important to note that the Eastern church has uniquely maintained an emphasis on the Septuagint, following in the steps of Peter and Paul, Matthew and Luke. This allows us to better enter into the phronema (the mind of Christ, His Apostles, and His Church), giving us a better way to meet Christ in His own time and place and read the very words read by his intimate friends and companions.
December 1, 2024
This is a fantastic book, if you have any interest in the Bible - read this!
This is the story of the Septuagint, the Greek collection of Jewish Scriptures which circulated during the Hellenistic era.
I was already familiar with its existence and with how much the New Testament references this rather than Hebrew texts. However, I learned about so much more.
- That there WAS no singular original Hebrew text on which this was based. There were many textual variations.
- That even if the Pentateuch was compiled at once, it took many years and many translation projects for the rest of the Old Testament to be translated.
- Some books (like Daniel) are fusions of a few unrelated stories. By extension, one question when translating a book was which texts actually comprised a book?
- As some books were written during the Hellenistic Era (often in Greek), another question is which of the new books are scripture, which are pious edifications, and which are false?
- Jerome is the reason Latin Christendom dumped the Septuagint (boooo!)
I learned so much about the textual history of Scripture. What is most fascinating is that ancient Christians grappled with the same question - if there is no singular, original, authoritative version of Book X, what does that mean? How is God active through one (or all, even) of these variations?
Amazing book, easy 5/5. If you care about Scripture read this.
This is the story of the Septuagint, the Greek collection of Jewish Scriptures which circulated during the Hellenistic era.
I was already familiar with its existence and with how much the New Testament references this rather than Hebrew texts. However, I learned about so much more.
- That there WAS no singular original Hebrew text on which this was based. There were many textual variations.
- That even if the Pentateuch was compiled at once, it took many years and many translation projects for the rest of the Old Testament to be translated.
- Some books (like Daniel) are fusions of a few unrelated stories. By extension, one question when translating a book was which texts actually comprised a book?
- As some books were written during the Hellenistic Era (often in Greek), another question is which of the new books are scripture, which are pious edifications, and which are false?
- Jerome is the reason Latin Christendom dumped the Septuagint (boooo!)
I learned so much about the textual history of Scripture. What is most fascinating is that ancient Christians grappled with the same question - if there is no singular, original, authoritative version of Book X, what does that mean? How is God active through one (or all, even) of these variations?
Amazing book, easy 5/5. If you care about Scripture read this.
April 10, 2019
A fascinating and well-written (for a scholarly book) of the Septuagint, the Greek (Old Testament) Bible of the first four centuries of the Christian Church. It turns out that the miracle of the seventy-two sages who were locked away for 72 days and produced 72 identical translations, is alas, another tall tale. The Septuagint was translated by different groups of scribes and scholars over a period of several hundred years, and it shows that there were not only different versions of the Greek translation, there were also many variants of the Hebrew "original." (The Hebrew text was not settled until about 200 CE.) Amusingly enough, when the Septuagint was superceded by Jerome's Vulgate in the west in the 5th Century, traditionalists objected that the Septuagint translators had been uniquely informed by the Holy Spirit to produce God's desired text, just as 1450 years later traditionalists would say the same about the KJV when the RSV came out.
May 9, 2024
The conversation on the Jewish canon and its associated textual criticism is fascinating (and every time I discuss it, read about it, etc., I am genuinely thrilled that the New Testament discussion is much more simple), but this book's addition to the topic feels inconsistent. On the one hand, I sympathize that a book like this for the general public is probably a nightmare to write; on the other hand, the author's bias creeps out and he makes the occasional really strange statement that leads me to wonder if I should trust anything he says. This material has a lot of question marks concerning whether chickens or eggs came first, and maybe it was the dumbed-down language (which the author admits he has to use for a book like this), but he seemed to make quite a few assumptions on that order. And then there's the material about how "Scripture" can include almost anything anyone wants.
June 29, 2019
Well written. Extraordinary research. Couldn't put it down. An eye-opening experience. To hear some of the same arguments that King James Only advocates used by Augustine in regard to the Septuagint condoms Solomon’s quip that there is nothing new under the sun and that every generation of believers will have a corner that venerates the Bible beyond its own claims. Dr. Las presents the history of the Septuagint, its favorability with the early church, and how the egomaniac Jerome led to its decline in the West. A certain blow to the cult of inerrancy, like most scholarly works, it pulls the carpet from under those who have elevated the Bible to the 4th member of the Godhead.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews