Now for Witness number 7, Flavius Josephus,
who lived from 37 to about 100 AD, over 300 years after
the supposed Septuagint was made.
In 37 AD he was born Joseph ben Matthias,
son of a Levite priest. He was well-educated and respected
among the Jewish people. He bounced around,
from hermit's disciple to Pharisee
to negotiator before Nero to free some priests.
Then in 66 AD he objected to the Jewish rebellion against Rome.
But then he joined the resistance, raised an army, fortified cities...
until the next year, 67, where he retreated
and then surrendered. Though he was imprisoned,
he became friends with Commander Vespasian,
who two years later in 69 AD became emperor.
Then Josephus served under Vespasian's son Titus,
urging his fellow Jews to submit and surrender to Rome.
They didn't. In 70 AD Jerusalem was destroyed.
But Titus liked Josephus, and took him back to Rome.
In 79 AD, Titus became the next emperor.
Josephus became his client, got great pay,
became a citizen and adopted the emperor's family name,
Flavius. He was set for life.
Now, as Flavius Josephus, he began writing history books,
in a manner pleasing to the Romans.
What seems most likely is that Josephus got a lot of information
from other people's books, and even remembered stories he was told,
and then put them all together into a history of Biblical times
and the Jewish people.
You can see how Josephus used other people's stories
in his version of the Letter of Aristeas.
You can find it in his book, "Antiquities of the Jews,"
Book 12, chapter 2. Josephus literally took
the Letter of Aristeas, and paraphrased 100 of the 322 sections.
Yes, I counted. Where Aristeas said "I,"
Josephus put "he." He removed the sections
where Aristeas talks to his brother, the list of translators,
descriptions of Jerusalem and the philosophical questions
the king asked. He didn't say anything, though,
that disagreed with Aristeas, at all.
In fact, in 12:2:12, Josephus said
you can check the book of Aristeas for more information!
Everything Josephus says matches the Letter of Aristeas
as we have it. Josephus doesn't give us
anything new, at all. The only thing he does show
is that by 93 AD, the Letter of Aristeas
was already written and circulating in Rome.
I'll deal with the rest when I go over the Letter of Aristeas.
So witness number 7 is excused.
That's the end of the Hellenistic Greek Jewish writings.
And there is still no real evidence to consider.
No one has proven the existence of a BC Septuagint.
So now for the so-called "Christian" witnesses.
Witness number 8, Justin Martyr, AD 100-165,
over 400 years after the supposed Septuagint was made.
He wrote in his "First Apology," Chapter 31,
a story that has so many important changed details,
you have to hear it yourself.
"There were, then, among the Jews
certain men who were prophets of God,
through whom the prophetic Spirit published beforehand
things that were to come to pass, ere ever they happened."
"Now when Ptolemy, the king of the Egyptians,
was forming a library and endeavoured to make
a collection of all men's writings, he heard tell, among the rest,
of these prophecies, and sent to Herod
who was then king of the Jews with a request that
the books of the prophecies might be transmitted to him.
And king Herod sent them, written in their native Hebrew tongue
of which I have spoken. But, since the Egyptians
were unacquainted with the things written therein,
he sent yet again and requested him [Herod]
to despatch men to render them
into the Greek language. This was done
and the books remained with the Egyptians and
are there to this day."
This one took me by surprise. Justin is a saint to Roman Catholics.
But this was a big mistake, or a bald-faced lie.
First, Justin's wasn't referring to
Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The only one alive
during the reign of King Herod was Ptolemy XV, Caesarion,
son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra the VII!
And how could Justin talk about Caesarion as king?
He was "king" in name only. Cleopatra ruled as Queen.
Caesarion was only 10-17 years old during Herod's reign,
which began in 37 BC, and Caesarion and Cleopatra
both died in 30 BC. And they only had those
7 years in common with Herod to arrange for
the Septuagint to be translated, if the story were true.
Besides, the library of Alexandria had been
around since the late 200s BC, started by Ptolemy I Soter.
No way was Caesarion just "forming a library."
So now Justin said it was the prophecies, not the Law,
that Ptolemy wanted translated. Justin rewrote the story
to fit his argument about Hebrew prophecies, it seems.
There is nothing accurate about it.
But let's give Justin the benefit of the doubt.
What if it was a case of mistaken identity?
You see, in 36 BC, Cleopatra had a son
with Marc Antony, her third child with him.
You know what she named him? Ptolemy Philadelphus! (Like him?)
But Egypt was taken over by Rome before he turned 6.
You don't suppose Justin Martyr thought that
Cleopatra's baby was the Ptolemy Philadelphus
of the Septuagint story, do you? If so, he really got his wires crossed!
I was taught Justin Martyr was a
reliable Christian witness. But now I'm stuck with
three possibilities: either he got his history book
from the bargain bin, or he completely changed the story
to suit his apologetic lesson, or he mistook a baby in 36 BC
with the 2nd Ptolemy in 276 BC. Regardless,
he didn't verify the facts. His account is completely unhelpful.
His testimony is, to say the least, not reliable.
Witness number 8 is excused.
That was the real Justin. But there's also a fake one,
witness number 9, Pseudo-Justin.
We have no idea who wrote in Justin's name
or exactly when. Obviously it was sometime
during or after Justin's life, so at least 400 years after
the Septuagint was supposedly written.
Let me just sum up the story from Pseudo-Justin's writing,
"Exhortation to the Greeks," Part 13.
First, in this story, Ptolemy asked for 70 wise men,
not 72.
Second, he had the 70 Hebrew translators
stay on the island "where the Pharos (lighthouse)
was built,"
but the Pharos wasn't finished until years into Philadelphus' reign
or after he died, around 247 BC.
Third, this fake Justin then claimed,
"These things which we declare unto you,
men of Greece, are no myths nor fictitious history.
We ourselves have been in Alexandria
and have seen the traces, still preserved,
of the cells in the island of Pharos, and have heard this story
which we tell you from the inhabitants,
who have had it handed down as a tradition of their country.
You may learn it from others also, and chiefly from those
wise and distinguished men who have written of it,
Philo and Josephus, but there are many others besides."
Philo and Josephus both were wrong.
Calling them "wise and distinguished" doesn't make their story
any more accurate.
"We declare to you?" Who's "we"?
We don't even know who wrote this. The author lied about his name,
saying he was Justin. How could we believe
anything else he wrote?
So witness number 9 is excused.
Witness number 10 is the famous, often quoted Irenaeus.
He wrote from 180-202 AD, over 450 years after
the Septuagint was supposedly created.
He declared that he learned from people who learned from John
and the other apostles. But no other early church people
mention Irenaeus in their writings. So we'd have to trust him
without any evidence.
But he claimed that all the apostles said
Jesus was 40-50 years old when He was crucified.
Jesus was really about 34. You can see this from
the dates of the rulers in Luke, the Passovers
and age of the Temple in John, and other early church events
that show this clearly. Irenaeus is deceived, or deceiving.
Irenaeus is also credited as the first person to justify
infant baptism. If that is true,
Irenaeus might have triggered people into removing Acts 8:37,
that says you may be baptized, if you first believe in Christ
with all your heart. And, of course,
a baby can't do that. So either change the doctrine
or remove the scripture. And you know which they did.
It's possible that someone he talked to
might have heard John in an Ephesus church service
before he died. But again,
there is no evidence from any source that Irenaeus got
any of his information from them, or who they would be.
It's hard to believe that anyone who
paid attention to the apostles would say such inaccurate things
as Irenaeus claimed. And there is no way
to check up on anything Irenaeus claimed he heard.
I don't see any compelling reason to believe what he wrote.
Let's face it. I don't trust the guy.
His Septuagint legend is found in his "Against Heresies,"
III. xxi. 2, sections 3-4:
He stated that it was the 1st Ptolemy, Ptolemy I Soter,
the one who ordered the Alexandrian library built,
and not Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who arranged for
the Hebrew and Greek language and culture-knowing Hebrews
to come to Alexandria.
He's the only guy in history to move the story back so far,
from the son, Ptolemy II, to the dad, Ptolemy I.
Irenaeus comes across as an unreliable historian at best,
and a liar, at worst.
Witness number 10, is excused.
Witness number 11 is Clement of Alexandria,
who lived about 150 to about 215 AD,
close to 500 years after the Septuagint was supposedly made.
He was an instructor of the school of Alexandria
before Origen. He's the guy I told you about
in the vlog "Origen-al Sin," who wrote
that it was okay to lie to people if he didn't feel
they were "worthy" of his secrets.
His story, from "Stromateis" I, sections 148-149,
just blended the stories from Pseudo (fake) Aristobulus
and the unreliable Irenaeus. Then he added a few other doozies.
First, he added that either Ptolemy I or II
asked the Hebrews to translate "the Scriptures,
both of the Law and of the prophets." That's Justin Martyr's story
blended in.
Second, he doesn't ever mention again
the part about translating the Law.
Clement wrote that each of the 70 elders (not 72)
translated each prophecy, and added the story
that they were written in the form of (get this)
Greek prophecies.
Third, he lied and claimed
that the scriptures totally perished during the Babylonian captivity
of Judah (probably between 586-536 BC).
Then he made up a second lie that Esdras (Ezra)
"was inspired to revive and prophesy afresh
all the ancient scriptures," literally from nothing!
No way! Clement's lie would mean that God's words perished, and
that He broke His own promise to preserve His words.
I am amazed that Clement said this. Do you see
why I don't trust these guys? The more you look,
the more these proto-Catholic guys stink.
We can trust the preserved words of God.
They never perished, and witness number 11,
Clement of Alexandria, has proved himself to be a liar.
He should have been locked up, not just excused.
That's not a mistake. That's full-out perjury.
Witness number 12 is Tertullian, from about 155 to about 240 AD,
again almost 500 years after the Septuagint was supposedly written.
He wrote his version in his "Apology," part 18.
Let's talk about what stands out in his testimony.
First, he said that Philadelphus set
Demetrius of Phalerum as the superintendent over
the library of Alexandria. He said that Demetrius was
"the most eminent philologist of his time,"
a guy who studied ancient books and determined if they were authentic.
It would be hard to say that Philadelphus
put such trust in Demetrius of Phalerum,
to set him over his library. Demetrius, it turns out,
voted against Philadelphus to make his brother,
Ptolemy Keraunos, to be ruler instead of Philadelphus.
So when Philadelphus finally took the throne,
he got his revenge by exiling Demetrius to upper Egypt.
And shortly after 283 BC, Demetrius died of a snake bite,
right at the beginning of Philadelphus' reign.
There is no way that Demetrius of Phalerum
was a friend of Philadelphus.
Second, he said that the 72 translators
were held in high esteem by the philosopher Menedemus,
after they answered all the king's questions.
But Menedemus lived far away in Greece, in Eretria,
and was never said to have visited Alexandria, Egypt.
But it is very likely that his writings were
in the library at Alexandria, for whoever made up this stuff.
And third, he claimed
that the libraries of Ptolemy are still shown in
the Serapeum, a branch library
in the temple of Serapis (that's all that's left today),
with the actual Hebrew documents that were used by the translators.
We can't verify that, since the entire Alexandrian library,
including the Serapeum, were destroyed in 391 AD.
So 2 out of 3 we know are wrong for sure.
That makes Tertullian's testimony unreliable.
So witness number 12, Tertullian, is excused.
Witness number 13 is a Catholic saint named
Anatolius of Laodicea, who lived from
the early 200s to 283 AD, over 500 years after
the Septuagint was supposedly made.
He grew up in Alexandria, Egypt in the time of Origen,
ran an Aristotelian school, and wrote 10 books on mathematics.
Only fragments of them survive today.
He wrote in "Canons Concerning the Passover"
(the "Paschal Canon"), and was quoted by Eusebius in
"Ecclesiastical History" VII. 32. It's so short
I can read you the whole quote.
"The famous Aristobulus, who was enrolled among the Seventy
who translated the holy and divine Scriptures
of the Hebrews for Ptolemy Philadelphus
and his father; he also addressed
to those same kings books in which
he expounded the meaning of the Mosaic law."
There are two things clearly wrong here.
First, "the famous Aristobulus" is really Pseudo-Aristobulus.
It's a fake letter, as you saw.
Second, no account anywhere
claimed Aristobulus was "enrolled among the Seventy"
translators. Even the fake story
was about a guy who was telling about an event that
happened over 100 years earlier.
Just because you are smart in math, geometry, physics,
astronomy, rhetoric and dialectic, like Anatolius,
doesn't mean you are good at history.
Witness number 13 is excused.