The LXX

Until recently, I didn't really know much about the Septuagint, or the LXX as it is often abbreviated. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from somewhere between the 3rd and 1st century BC. The LXX was widely used in the early Christian church. According to this webpage, there are about 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament and roughly 2/3 of them are from the LXX, not from the original Hebrew. What is particularly interesting about all this is that the two sometimes disagree. Let's look at an example. Hebrews 10:5 says the following:

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me...

This is a quotation from the LXX version of Psalm 40:6. The original Hebrew of that passage, however, says, "you have given me an open ear." The writer of Hebrews concludes, in verse 10, that "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Somehow that analogy just wouldn't be the same if you substitute "ear" for "body!"

I won't bother to give the explanation Dr. Barr provides for the way "ear" came to be translated as "body." The point is that the writer of Hebrews based a doctrinal point on a misreading of the original Hebrew Psalm.

The wikipedia article on the Septuagint explains how the LXX was rejected by Jerome in his famous Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. Our Bible today contain translations from the original Hebrew, but again, up until that time the early church used the LXX as their source. This became a problem for the Jews because of passages like Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew says predicted the virgin birth of Christ (see Matthew 1:21-23). Interestingly enough, there is currently a project going on to produce a complete "Orthodox Study Bible" in modern English. The Orthodox Church apparently regards the LXX, not the Hebrew Old Testament, as its official Old Testament canon. Why? Precisely because it was the translation most often quoted by Jesus and the other writers of the New Testament (see this page of FAQs).

At this point you may be asking, "What does all this prove?" I don't know that it necessarily proves anything in particular. The point of this series is that we often do not understand a lot about what the Bible really is. In my opinion, a lot of fundamentalist claims about the Bible have come about because of these misunderstandings combined with Modern, cultural presuppositions about what the Bible "ought" to be.

Next time, in my conclusion to this series, I will try to explain my basic view of Scripture from a positive viewpoint. I've said plenty about what the Bible is not. Hopefully, I can tie together some of my thoughts about what the Bible actually is!

********************
Links to the rest of this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions 

Comments

[Laura]

One of my profs (John Sailhamer) contends that one can follow messianic theology by tracking the differences between the LXX and Hebrew OT and by comparing the textual differneces in Hebrew manuscripts. I've not taken the time to check this out--as I prefer to have some sort of life--but it is an intriguing notion.

Honestly, the more I have learned about Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and other manuscripts, the more I realize that this whole thing is a matter of faith and the preponderance of the evidence.

Anyone who claims absolute certainty in any camp probably does not have a sufficient grasp the evidence. I have learned to claim only the certainty of faith, held with assurance and a willingness to listen to those who hold different points of view (a practice I am hopefully getting better at).

[ken]

...and there you have it. Imagine us believing based on faith? What a concept! (sarcasm NOT directed at Laura, simply venting)
I say we put all the 'experts' in one room and let them duke it out (figuratively) till there're none left. Then maybe we can get back to owning our faith instead of hanging it on what some imperfect human says we should think.

[Laura]

Amen. There is a way to have a strongly held position, passionately express it, and not come off like you are trying to be God. Sure, we all slip into the arrogance trap from time to time, but some seem to have more trouble in that area (I have noticed theologians and philosophers in particular...oh, and political pundits, but that is another issue).

Hmmm, maybe seminaries should teach politeness (a la charm school)...

[ken]

There's an idea.

[ken]

The rest of you talk amongst yourselves. Laura and I are going to figure it all out and we'll let you know what we come up with.
;-)

[deborah]

In this research, have you found any issues that are larger or fundamental in nature than the examples you have listed? One of the concerns people have is that by traveling down this road, some of the basics of Christianity will be called into question. So far the differences seem minor. Yes, ear and body are different, but it isn't virgin birth big.

The largest difference I have run across is the Great Commission translation - that we are used to "go and make" and it probably was "as you go", which could call into question the way we do missions. And by the way, who decided that was the "Great Commission" anyway - why not the two punch love God, love others that Jesus actually called the greatest commandment?

[r]

I agree with Laura, that alot of our beliefs comes from faith, not that we just dismiss those things that we find to be perhaps translated differantly but that we trust that what God has given is what we need for today. Also we must remember that for centuries this is the Bible that we've had, and this WORD of God has been spread around the world and that many MILLIONS of people have been saved. I understand that there may be ways to now see the differant writings and compare them but I do believe that if God wanted this to be revealed earlier dont we think that the ALPOWERFUL God could do that? I believe without a doubt the passage from Hebrews 4:12 Our Bible has to be "living" and "active" or else its true our faith then becomes shaken and then what will our witness be? This is what makes us differant then other"religions", that we have truths that change lives. And there is no dispute there.

[Laura]

I take faith as a way of knowing that is different from, but most certainly not less than, reason. For example, because I trust God, I trust that he is able to keep his revelation clear despite the many translational oddities that have been introduced into the text. I also trust that when he first inspired the writers, he was ablt to communicate exactly what he intended while not usurping the human writer's intention.

I also hold the canon (OT and NT) to be the foundational and primary source for our beliefs. Tradition, reason, and other sources may have a say, but the Canon remains the un-normed norming norm of theology. One reason I say this is that the Canon is the Bible that we have. It has been held as the word of God by generations of Christians, and the OT has been held as the word of God by generations of God-followers before that. Faith comes in here as well, for I must have faith that God is able to guide his people to recognize the canon accurately.

Faith is the solid structure on which our ponderings can play.

[Bill]

Deb,

As a follow-up to this series, I plan on doing a post or two with the title "Understanding the Gospel." Your comment is somewhat related, but I'll wait till then to talk about it!

[Bill]

Laura,

I think I agree with the basic stance you're taking, but here are a few questions:

1. What do you mean by "un-normed norming norm?"
2. You wrote "the canon is the Bible we have." What about the apocrypha? Haven't generations of Christians recognized a different canon than we Protestants recognize?
3. I have no problem giving special status to the books of the Bible, but why should we insist on viewing them as the be all end all, so to speak?

[Laura]

1. What do you mean by "un-normed norming norm?"

"un-normed": we do not correct the Bible according to our theology.
"norming": we correct our theology according to the Bible

2. You wrote "the canon is the Bible we have." What about the apocrypha? Haven't generations of Christians recognized a different canon than we Protestants recognize?

From what I understand, the Apocrypha was not officially accepted until 1547 at the Council of Trent. In contrast, the Hebrew Bible (the TaNaKh) was settled around 200 BC and the 27 book NT was listed in its current composition as early as AD 130 by Irenaeus. Further, (nearly) all Christians generally accept the 66-book canon, while the Apocrypha and other sets are in dispute. I choose to err toward that which most Christians consider to be the revealed Word.

3. I have no problem giving special status to the books of the Bible, but why should we insist on viewing them as the be all end all, so to speak?

Because the Bible has been stable for centuries it is less susceptible to whim--especially given the excellent manuscript evidence. Considering the canon as the norming norm is not the same as "end all and be all." Note that I said "tradition, reason, and other sources may have a say." When the sources contradict, though, what is held as the deciding vote? I believe that is the 66-book canon.