1. What is this narrative really about?

a) It presents the Septuagint as a political–propagandistic project.
b) It maintains that the translation altered Jewish religion, enabled the rise of Christianity, and triggered a long-lasting conflict over textual authority.
c) It claims that the entire process was driven from the start by economics, elite interests, and a struggle for control over interpretation.
d) It extends this into a broader thesis: all Bible translations are tools of politics and ideology.

The narrative is literarily coherent but relies on striking simplifications and often uses suggestion instead of argument. It requires historical and methodological correction.

––––––
2. Historical facts – what is established and what is not

a) Historical background
– The translation of the Torah into Greek arose during the reign of Ptolemy II in the 3rd century BCE.
– The Jewish diaspora in Alexandria was indeed large and Hellenized.
– The Library of Alexandria conducted extensive translation projects.

These are well-confirmed facts.

b) The Letter of Aristeas
– Most scholars agree that it is a pseudonymous text, composed in a Jewish environment with an apologetic purpose.
– It is not, however, “a lie invented centuries later,” but a literary–ideological text reflecting how the diaspora understood its own position.

c) The nature of the translation
– The Septuagint is not a uniform translation produced at one moment. The Torah was translated earlier; the remaining books were translated in various periods.
– The project certainly had a political context, but we have no evidence that rulers interfered in theological content. The state financed the work; it did not dictate doctrines.

d) Christianity’s dependence on the LXX
– Yes, the first Christians used the Scriptures in their Greek form.
– Yes, some differences between the LXX and the Masoretic Text played an apologetic role.
– However, Christianity did not “arise accidentally because of a translation.” Its central content was the interpretation of a historical event (the death and resurrection of Jesus) carried out by Jewish interpreters within Jewish theological categories.

Attributing everything to the Greek text is reductive.

––––––
3. The real issue: textual pluralism in antiquity

What the video narrative does not sufficiently grasp is that:

a) ancient Judaism did not possess a single fixed Hebrew text,
b) different communities used different versions,
c) the LXX is a witness to one such variant, not a “distortion” of an original.

The Qumran discoveries demonstrated that some LXX variants reflect older Hebrew traditions than the later Masoretic text. This means we cannot describe history as a conflict between “the true Hebrew text and a Hellenized manipulation.” The reality is more complex.

––––––
4. The thesis of a political goal behind the Ptolemies – how much truth in it

a) Hellenistic rulers did indeed pursue cultural integration of elites through language and institutions.
b) One must nevertheless be cautious with the claim that the Septuagint was a tool of “controlled religious assimilation.” There is no evidence that the Ptolemies interfered with theological content or that the project aimed at religious uniformity.
c) The state financed translations of various peoples, not only Jews. This does not mean it sought to culturally “homogenize” them but that it wished to build a universal library – an instrument of royal prestige.

Overpoliticizing the project is an attractive but weakly documented thesis.

––––––
5. The actual influence of the LXX on diaspora Judaism

a) The diaspora itself needed a text in the language of daily life.
b) It was the diaspora, not the rulers, that determined its reception.
c) Hellenistic communities under the influence of the LXX did indeed develop a more allegorical and philosophical style of interpretation (e.g., Philo).
d) A conflict existed between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, but portraying them as “two hostile religions” is anachronistic and exaggerated. These were two emphases within a single Jewish civilization.

––––––
6. Christianity and the Septuagint – proportion and correction

a) Without the LXX, Christianity would have had a different theological vocabulary, true.
b) But the origins of Christianity lie in a Jewish movement, not in translation mishaps.
c) Some prophecies in Christian interpretation do rely on the Greek variant; others do not at all.
d) The claim that “Christianity exists because a translator wrote ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman’” is an oversimplification.

Prophetic interpretation functioned on typological levels as well, not only on literal semantics.

––––––
7. The canon question – presented correctly, but rhetorically overstated

a) Different Christian traditions use different canons – that is a fact.
b) Augustine’s role in defending the deuterocanonical books – fact.
c) Luther’s role in rejecting them – fact.

However:

d) Claiming that the Church preserved these books mainly because “they served financial interests” is a one-sided interpretation. The deuterocanonical books belonged to the Church’s reading tradition long before medieval financial abuses.
e) Canonical decisions had theological and liturgical motivations, not merely economic ones.

––––––
8. The ideological leap: from antiquity to modern criticism of translations

The narrative correctly notes that:

a) every translation is an interpretation,
b) every translation arises within an institutional context,
c) no translation is wholly neutral.

But the video shifts from an obvious truth to an extreme thesis:

d) “every Bible is an instrument of financial or political manipulation.”

This is an overstatement. Yes, religious institutions have interests. But most translations of the 20th and 21st centuries are produced by scholarly committees, with peer review and transparent methodology. Modern biblical philology bears little resemblance to projects of ancient monarchies.

––––––
9. The greatest strengths of the presented narrative

a) It shows that the Bible did not emerge in a vacuum but in a concrete historical context.
b) It rightly emphasizes that biblical texts have a redactional history.
c) It rightly underscores that the LXX is key to understanding Christianity.
d) It rightly warns against naïve fundamentalism.

––––––
10. The greatest weaknesses of the narrative

a) Reductionism – reducing religious phenomena to financial interests.
b) Exaggeration – suggesting vast conspiracies where ordinary cultural processes suffice as explanation.
c) Ignoring the internal dynamics of Jewish and Christian traditions, which cannot be reduced to economics.
d) A dramatic construction built on “had it not been for this word, Christianity would never have existed,” attractive for audiences but weak academically.

––––––
11. What conclusion is genuinely justified?

a) Translation is an act of interpretation.
b) Every translation carries theological and cultural consequences.
c) The Septuagint played a major role in shaping Christianity.
d) The conflict over textual authority persisted for centuries and took institutional form.
e) Therefore, anyone seriously studying the Bible should know Hebrew, Greek, textual history, manuscript variants, and canonical context.

––––––
12. What is an overreach and should not be accepted uncritically

a) The claim that politics was the primary driving force behind the LXX.
b) The idea that Christianity is “a by-product of mistranslation.”
c) The depiction of two separate Judaisms as nearly hostile civilizations.
d) The claim that the Church preserved the deuterocanonical books mainly for financial reasons.
e) Parallels between the Ptolemies and modern publishers taken as literal description rather than rhetoric.

––––––
13. A conservative perspective

From a conservative standpoint:

a) Religious tradition is not the construct of arbitrary interest groups. It is the result of long-term cultural selection and interpretation.
b) A text does not endure unless generations of believers find it meaningful.
c) The Septuagint survived because its content met the spiritual needs of communities, not because someone “imposed” it.
d) Reducing its significance to finance and politics ignores what actually moves religion: conviction of truth, encounter with transcendence, and the experience of meaning.

––––––
14. Final assessment

The narrative is an interesting exercise in the history of ideas and highlights genuine textual issues. Yet its mode of presentation rests on a single thesis: everything is politics. This is an oversimplification. The history of religion is richer. Power and money influenced institutions, but they do not explain the whole phenomenon. The key intellectual, spiritual, and cultural processes unfolded independently of rulers—and sometimes in opposition to them.

Excellent work on this documentary. The insights presented here directly parallel the conclusions of my current research, providing really solid real-world evidence for the topic. Thank you for putting this together.

The Septuagint was the most widely known Scriptures among many, perhaps most of the Jews of the 1st century.   As with the English translations of today,  it was in a language, Greek, that most of them used at a time when Hebrew was no longer a spoken language.   It was produced by Jewish Scholars and reflects their understanding of the documents and manuscripts they had - there is no such thing as an "original" of any text from that period, it's all based on varying manuscripts,  none of which can be determined to have priority in the sense of a modern manuscript in the hand of its author.     The best evidence is that it was the Scripture that Paul knew and Paul is, according to Amy Levine,  the only Pharisee whose writing survives.   He was "zealous for the law" as Pharisees were held to be so there is no case to be made that the Septuagint - for which there are older surviving manuscripts than for the modern Masoretic Scriptures - is in some way illegitimate.    In the case of those cases, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, where a Hebrew manuscript of a Biblical book is available,  in some ways they agree with the Masoretic version,  in some details they are supportive of the Septuagint reading of things.    Christianity was founded by Jews, it's no wonder that what they knew as Scripture,  which they read in their worship would have been the most familiar version of that in their world at that time.

Thank you for your reporting and analysis.

Great explanation !

Thanks for the mention!

Wow!  A magnificent and valuable contribution to understanding one's religious and political identity(s).  Thank you for a wonderful presentation.  (I assume the graphics are all computer generated.  Well done, though it's sad that there is so little variation in the faces of those depicted.)

I didn't expect much about this vid but wow, you wrote a brilliant script, going to the essence of a massive and highly political subject. Husserl, and maybe even Derrida, would have been proud of you. Thx for taking the time to really care, and be an actual service to your fellow man.

This is beautiful to study and learn from

Educational, thanks ❤❤❤

I just found this channel a few days ago and I'm very pleased. I think i will be listening to quite a few of the videos.  Well done. I really appreciate the historical information revealed here.

My screen read ‘arms’ when the speaker said ‘alms’ — proving your point about changes in ‘translation’.

Very eye opening and it gives a lot of answers eg how Christianity got so gastlich successful and also in regards to Marcion and the good old Paul (imposter)… Also when Philosoph comes into play and his decisive role when Arianism  was a topic … thank you soooo much!!!

Masoretic Text is not the original but a Jewish rabbis translation around 1000 ago not translated by the original people during biblical times but the Septuagint matches more with  the deadsea Hebrew scrolls which is the older text along with the Ethiopian bible than the newer Masoretic Text called the Hebrew Bible today.

The differences are no where near as big as this is making them out to be.
I highly recommend that everyone should take the time to grab an interlinear
Bible and explore it themselves. I’m currently going through it for the 2nd time,
chapter by chapter & verse by verse, comparing the Masoretic text to the Septuagint
and I’m continually surprised by how much more I learn.
God Bless
❤️🙏🎚🏁

One of the best explanations of biblical texts i've ever heard! I what's baptize and confirmed a Lutheran, live next door to a moment church for a while and wait to some family home meetings with them, have been too various churches, one of my favorites, and most recent being the African Episcopalian Methodist because honestly , black churches are so much more engaging than white churches, and I found it very similar to Lutheran. After being raised Lutheran I also studied with Jehovah's Witnesses for a few years , and they explain that the New World Translation , goes back to the Septuagint and then they talk about the literal translation  from Hebrew to Greek . In the last several years , I started wondering why they didn't acknowledge any of the newfound books like the dead sea scrolls and why they don't consider anything that's in the Lost Books to be a possibility of actual scripture. The few that I have talked to have refused to even listen to anything other than the New World Translation. I have been listening to as many of the what is considered lost books or Apocrypha as I can, and I always keep an open mind with the knowledge that politics and money have driven the final versions of what we have today. The "extra" books have been an incredible source of filling in the gaps of the King James Version, and very fascinating. This was extremely enlightening.Thank you so much!😊

33:02 Also, Augustine did not practice or teach the sale or use of indulgences, as this was a later development in church history primarily in the West. In fact a lot of these practices were later developments

Very informative thanks for sharing this.
  My question is:why does the Septuagint version in the book of Daniel have 2 more chapters (13 and 14) but not the other translations?
    Why were these 2 chapters rejected?

Can you recommend books or any other articles to read supporting this view?

Thank you for your science, history,  teaching, hard work, dedication, kindness, and generosity. May GOD reward you good.