Why the Septuagint Should Not Be Trusted — and Why the King James Bible Can Be
Many Christians today are told that the Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles was a Greek version called the Septuagint (LXX). But where did this story come from — and can it be trusted?
This post begins our 5-part series drawn from Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones’ critical research. We’ll uncover why the common narrative about the Septuagint’s origins is not only historically unsound — but spiritually dangerous.
1. The Letter of Aristeas: A Fragile Foundation
The primary source for the Septuagint’s origin is a document known as the Letter of Aristeas. It claims that around 250 B.C., 72 Jewish elders translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek while in Alexandria, Egypt. Each of them, supposedly working independently, produced identical translations — a supposed miracle confirming the project’s divine favor.
But this story is riddled with problems. Even secular historians agree that the Letter of Aristeas is pseudepigraphal — written centuries after the fact by someone claiming to be an Egyptian courtier. Its contradictions, myth-like embellishments, and historical inaccuracies have caused even liberal scholars to question its authenticity.
2. No Evidence of a Full Greek Old Testament Before Christ
While fragments of a Greek Pentateuch may have existed before Christ, there is no evidence that a complete Greek Old Testament — including the prophets, psalms, and historical books — existed during the Lord’s earthly ministry.
Church fathers from Origen to Jerome disagreed about what the Septuagint even was. By the time of the early church, there were multiple conflicting Greek versions, often revised and blended with Christian editing.
3. Implausible Claims and Pagan Parallels
The idea that 72 elders all independently translated the Scriptures and came up with identical Greek versions mirrors pagan miracle tales more than biblical history. It does not resemble God’s usual methods of transmission through prophets and scribes.
Such embellishment makes the story sound less like preservation of truth and more like myth-making — designed to elevate Alexandrian philosophy and justify later changes.
4. The King James Bible and the Masoretic Text
Unlike the Septuagint, the King James Bible is grounded in the Hebrew Masoretic Text — the same text preserved meticulously by Jewish scribes and endorsed by Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44). It does not rest on fables or forgeries but on a providentially preserved witness of God’s Word.
Psalm 12:6–7 promises that God’s words are pure and preserved. When we trust the King James Bible, we are trusting the fruit of that preservation — not a reconstructed text based on a questionable Greek translation.
Conclusion
The origins of the Septuagint are shrouded in contradiction and legend. But the Word of God has not been left in confusion. Through the faithful transmission of the Hebrew text and the careful translation of the King James Bible, we have a trustworthy witness to the Scriptures. Let us not trade the preserved for
Thank you so much for this. It was very helpful.
“If someone wants the one-hour version of the case for the Septuagint and against the rabbinic text which has corrupted the Church and the West, listen to the final hour of the final episode of the Stone Choir LXX series, which summarizes the evidence.”
https://overcast.fm/+AA9BTXLboPM/1:04:30
Thank you for the recommendation, Jim.
I have spent a fair amount of time looking into the Septuagint question and have also worked through Floyd Nolen Jones’ research on the subject. My concern is that the case for the Septuagint often begins with the assumption that the Hebrew text preserved by the Jews became corrupted, despite our Lord’s affirmation that “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2).
Before I can accept that conclusion, I would need convincing evidence that the Hebrew text was corrupted and that a Greek translation should be preferred over the language in which God originally gave the Old Testament.
The further I study the issue, the more I find myself asking why the Septuagint contains significant chronological differences, why the manuscripts disagree so widely among themselves, and why the earliest historical claims concerning its origin rest largely on the Letter of Aristeas.
I appreciate the suggestion and may listen to the episode, but at present I remain persuaded that the Hebrew text underlying the Authorized Version deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than the suspicion often directed toward it.