A common argument for trusting the Septuagint is that Jesus and the apostles supposedly quoted from it in the New Testament. But is this true? And if so, what does it mean for our view of Scripture today?
1. The Assumption: New Testament = Septuagint?
Many modern scholars claim that the New Testament writers used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament. This assumption is based on comparing certain NT quotations with how verses appear in the Septuagint today — and noting similarities.
However, similarity is not identity. A shared wording does not mean the Septuagint was the source — especially when the Septuagint itself underwent later Christian revisions that postdate the New Testament.
2. Inspiration, Not Imitation
The apostles were not simply copyists — they were inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). When they quoted the Old Testament, they were guided in how to phrase it for clarity and fulfillment.
Sometimes they quoted directly, sometimes by the Spirit’s paraphrase — always in alignment with the Hebrew Scriptures, not a conflicting Greek source.
3. Hebrew Roots Confirmed by Jesus
Jesus upheld the Hebrew Scriptures, not a Greek version. He said, ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law’ (Matthew 5:18). ‘Jot’ and ‘tittle’ refer to the smallest marks in Hebrew — not Greek.
In Luke 24:44, He refers to ‘the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms’ — the Jewish division of the Hebrew Bible. There is no reference to a Greek canon.
4. The Septuagint Was Edited After the New Testament
Much of what we now call the Septuagint is derived from Origen’s Hexapla (3rd century A.D.), which included Christian edits to align Old Testament passages with how the New Testament quoted them.
In other words, some Septuagint readings were changed to match the New Testament — not the other way around.
5. The KJV Follows the Preserved Hebrew
The King James Bible translators worked from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, not the Greek Septuagint. Where the New Testament quotes the Old, they preserved the inspired balance — sometimes quoting verbatim, sometimes in Spirit-led summary, always in harmony.
They did not lean on a corrupt Greek tradition but on the faithful record of God’s preserved Hebrew Word.
Conclusion
The apostles did not rely on the Septuagint — they relied on the Holy Spirit and the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint, as we know it today, was shaped after their time. But the King James Bible stands firmly in the tradition Christ affirmed — the pure Hebrew text, faithfully translated, spiritually discerned.
This
“The apostles were not simply copyists — they were inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).”
completely misrepresents what Peter writes. In context, from the NRSVUE (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201&version=NRSVUE)
“16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved,[e] with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s[f] own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.[g]”
Peter distinguishes the apostles’ reporting of what they simply saw–relaying direct observations/lived experiences–from “prophecy of scripture”, which refers to the prophets of what we now call the “Old Testament”.
Please let the text speak for itself, rather than wedging it into an unnatural shape. The Bible is not so fragile that it requires the notion of radical inspiration, which tries to say that the words of Jesus are on the same level as the erotic poetry of the Song of Solomon or the court recorders of I & II Kings/I & II Chronicles; THAT denies the Messiah His *special* anointing and rôle, reducing Him to “yet another player” status rather than His unique place in soteriology and reframing our understanding of the Creator’s true nature.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree that 2 Peter 1:20–21 is speaking directly about the prophetic Scriptures. My point, however, was not that this passage alone proves apostolic inspiration, but that the apostles were not merely copying earlier texts. Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would teach them, bring His words to their remembrance, and guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). Paul likewise states that the things he spoke were taught by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13), and Peter later recognizes Paul’s writings among “the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15–16). Thus, while Peter is discussing the origin of prophecy in chapter 1, the New Testament as a whole plainly presents the apostolic writings as Spirit-guided Scripture. I appreciate your interaction.