I came across an interesting point over the weeken..

Septuagint or not

14 w

I came across an interesting point over the weekend that got me thinking. When do we accept the Septuagint as authoritative, and when do we reject it?

Take the Book of Daniel as an example. The original text was written in three different languages—the middle section in Aramaic (the oldest part), with two Hebrew sections added at the beginning and end. Later, the Septuagint introduced additional passages, which Protestants reject, while other Christian traditions accept them as Scripture.

So, my question is: Is there a clear rule for when we accept or reject the Septuagint? Or do we simply use it when it aligns with our doctrines and disregard it when it doesn’t?

If it’s the latter, it seems like we’re bending Scripture to fit our beliefs rather than shaping our beliefs to align with Scripture. 😖

What are your thoughts?

#septuagint

Comment

{The below is taken from a conversation about the Eastern Orthodox view of Scripture.}

It's just a chart from Wikipedia, but it interests me somewhat on the subject of biblical canon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table

According to the chart, Judaism, Anglican, Lutheran, and "Protestant" all basically agree - and the footnote on "Protestant" is: "The term "Protestant" is not accepted by all Christian denominations who often fall under this title by default—especially those who view themselves as a direct extension of the New Testament church. However, the term is used loosely here to include most of the non-Roman Catholic Protestant, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Reformed, and Evangelical churches. Other western churches and movements that have a divergent history from Roman Catholicism, but are not necessarily considered to be historically Protestant, may also fall under this umbrella terminology."
So what to see is you have a chart of the various canons used by certain churches, and "everyone else uses this canon".

It seems clear that the prophets were of course the ones to whom God made clear that certain revelations were not only for specific people but were part of God's Word to all mankind, and therefore to be preserved for all mankind. We received the oracles of God from the Jews - part of the Word is what is and what is not his Word: the canon. But many groups set the words of saints and popes and early church fathers and their own traditions as equal to the Scripture delivered by God to his people the circumcised, and, thus considering themselves to be the judges of what should be regarded as divinely authoritative, they applied their own judgement on various texts claiming to be part of Scripture; being men, and not God, they inevitably disagreed and came up with various, divergent canons.

Okay, here’s a fuller brief summary of my view now. 🙂

I can see where, apart from false scriptures held to by a few people in a corner, there can be said to be only two lists contending. However, the idea that the variations in the one list come from a confusion or misunderstanding between the authority and divinity of a book and how / where it is normally read still seems to show an infinitely lower attitude towards Scripture. The idea of "degrees of authority" rather than a binary in or out is I believe totally unreasonable and unscriptural. "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?" A prophet was either false, and to be therefore put to death, or of God, and therefore any who disobeyed were to be put to death. When we speak of God's Word to mankind we are talking about absolute authority, and by definition there are no degrees of absolute. The Sadducees were a heretical cult, so in that sense I would say that they are indeed a good example of a "degrees of authority" attitude.
.
The references to the Septuagint among early church fathers were all based on the “letter of Aristeas”, a fable of 72 Jews who went to Alexandria and in 72 days individually made 72 translations of the Torah that matched each other word for word. Even those who claim that the early church fathers give validity to the LXX reject this fable, which was popularised (and possibly invented) by Philo and Josephus as propaganda for some translation in their day, and for that reason the term “Septuagint” was applied to various translations to give them credibility. An anti-christian heretic named Aquila made a translation in around A.D. 140 which was called a/the “Septuagint” (which however did not contain the Apocrypha). An Ebionite heretic called Theodotian in A.D. 180 presented a “correction of the original Septuagint”. Another Ebionite heretic called Symmachus made a translation in A.D. 211 which was also called a/the “Septuagint” (yet didn’t include the Apocrypha). The heretic Origen claimed to be “restoring” the Septuagint, from “as many different translations as there were manuscripts”, based on Aquila, Theodotian, Symmachus, and a few other manuscripts which he called “corrupted”. It is the text of Origen’s making that is our Septuagint of today, coming from the spurious codices of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and it was Origen who included the Apocrypha in his Septuagint, the first to do so it is said (and even Jerome said they should not be used to establish doctrine).
.
The heretic Augustine believed the Septuagint was a divinely inspired translation because of the mythical letter of Aristeas, but Jerome complained that this fabled original was now corrupted and lost, and only Origen’s text was available by then. Part of the claim to fame of Aristeas’ Septuagint was how exactly it corresponded to the Hebrew, whereas now people promote the modern Septuagint of Origen for almost the opposite reason. The Aristeas letter is the only reference to a Greek translation of the OT before Christ. The only pieces of Greek translations of the OT that date before Christ are a few fragments found in Egypt containing Deu. 23, 25:13, 26:12,17,19, 28:31-33, and 32:7.
Of the 268 references to “as it is written” in the NT, few match the Hebrew OT; most do not match any ancient document word for word. The reason for this is plain: they were not meant to be word for word quotes, just as I might say “the Bible says God made the world”, when “God made the world” does not occur word for word anywhere in the Bible. The reason there are word for word matches in Origen’s Septuagint is simply because Origen’s Septuagint came after Christ, and in his compilation he “copied and pasted” from the NT (like someone inserting “God made the world” into the Bible). He also added names to genealogies to correct what he considered to be contradictions.
In short, if God’s Word is preserved only through Origen, then God has not preserved his Word at all, and it is no longer to be found on planet earth.
.
The idea that the Hebrew OT was only preserved by anti-christian Jews seems to assume that Christian Jews didn’t exist, or that they didn’t preserve the original Scriptures at all, which is quite a strange idea. I believe that a remnant of faithful circumcised has always existed and always will exist (Paul specifically affirmed that he never taught Jews to not circumcise their children). The anti-christian Jews were probably those whom John, a Jew, meant when he said “who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan”. The idea that there were no good Jews is an old anti-semitic view, and it seems necessary to the claim that only anti-christian Jews held to the Hebrew canon without the Apocrypha.
.
The idea that Paul based doctrine on something present only in a translation sounds to me like Gale Riplinger claiming that the KJV “corrected” the original Hebrew (I’m not pro-KJV by the way (though not because of Gale Riplinger 🙂 )). The “jot and tittle” Jesus called unchanging referred to the letters and pen-strokes of the Hebrew. Just as a side-note, if Hebrew was not in fact a common language in the time of Christ, I would wonder why it was put on the cross by the Romans. The Roman centurion was surprised to hear that Paul could speak Greek, which would have been strange if the entire crowd was screaming at him in Greek. The NT was written in Greek, but it wasn’t necessarily what Christ spoke (for instance Paul specified that Christ spoke to him in Hebrew on the road to Damascus, and what Christ said in Hebrew is recorded for us in Greek). Christ refers to the “law, prophets, and psalms”, a threefold division kept in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint, and speaks of the martyrs “from Abel to Zacharias” - Urijah came later chronologically, but Zachariah is mentioned later, in Chronicles, which is placed last in the Hebrew order. All except the six shortest books of the undisputed canon are quoted from, but the Apocrypha, a much larger body of text, is never quoted from. They also have contradictions (for example saying that the captivity was not seventy years but seven generations), and false doctrine (such as exorcism by fish liver smoke, ahem).
.
If it is a misconception that the council of Trent canonised and made authoritative books which had before been read but not considered canonical or doctrinal, it at least is not a modern misconception. Dr. Cosin in 1657 (around 50 years after the council of Trent) says: “IN this Scholaftical Hiftory I give an Account of the Canonical and undubitate Books of Holy Scripture as they are numbred in the VI Article of Religion set forth by the Church of England, and have been recei- ved by the Catholick Church in all severall Ages sence the time of the Apoflles till the Church ot Rome thought fit compofe and drejfe up a New- Additional Canon thereof for themselves in their late Council of Trent, where it was one of the first things they did to lay this Foun- dation for all their New Religion which they built upon it; “That the Apocryphal Writings and Traditions of Men were nothing inferiour nor less Canonical than the Soveraign Dictates of God as well for the Confirmation of Doctrinal Points pertaining fo Faith, as for the Ordering of Life and Manners, but that both the One and the other ought to be embraced with the fame Affection of Piety and received with the like religious Reverence not making any difference between them.” (V. Decret. Con. Trid. Supra recitat {quoting from the council of Trent, quoted on the previous pages})”
https://archive.org/details/sc....holasticalhist00cosi
.
About false prophets, yes, the prophets must be proven by miracles, “confirming the word with signs following”. As a prophet confirmed by signs is the only source of Scripture, so is the original prophet the only authority to establish canon, what is the Word of God to all mankind. The circumcised were given the prophets, to be confirmed by signs. The undisputed canon of the OT, and the NT, were both delivered to and confirmed to the faithful circumcised by signs of God, and every pen-stroke is inviolate, backed by thousands of witnesses; “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Using “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth” to say that majority or tradition decides what is Scripture and what is authoritative doctrine is the same line used by Roman Catholic friends of ours, which makes me wonder if modern Orthodoxy and Rome are sharing more of their doctrines.

{The below is taken from a conversation about the Eastern Orthodox view of Scripture.} 
 
It's just a chart from Wikipedia, but it interests me somewhat on the subject of biblical canon: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table 
 
According to the chart, Judaism, Anglican, Lutheran, and "Protestant" all basically agree - and the footnote on "Protestant" is: "The term "Protestant" is not accepted by all Christian denominations who often fall under this title by default—especially those who view themselves as a direct extension of the New Testament church. However, the term is used loosely here to include most of the non-Roman Catholic Protestant, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Reformed, and Evangelical churches. Other western churches and movements that have a divergent history from Roman Catholicism, but are not necessarily considered to be historically Protestant, may also fall under this umbrella terminology." 
So what to see is you have a chart of the various canons used by certain churches, and "everyone else uses this canon". 
 
It seems clear that the prophets were of course the ones to whom God made clear that certain revelations were not only for specific people but were part of God's Word to all mankind, and therefore to be preserved for all mankind. We received the oracles of God from the Jews - part of the Word is what is and what is not his Word: the canon. But many groups set the words of saints and popes and early church fathers and their own traditions as equal to the Scripture delivered by God to his people the circumcised, and, thus considering themselves to be the judges of what should be regarded as divinely authoritative, they applied their own judgement on various texts claiming to be part of Scripture; being men, and not God, they inevitably disagreed and came up with various, divergent canons. 
 
 
Okay, here’s a fuller brief summary of my view now.  🙂 
 
I can see where, apart from false scriptures held to by a few people in a corner, there can be said to be only two lists contending. However, the idea that the variations in the one list come from a confusion or misunderstanding between the authority and divinity of a book and how / where it is normally read still seems to show an infinitely lower attitude towards Scripture. The idea of "degrees of authority" rather than a binary in or out is I believe totally unreasonable and unscriptural. "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?" A prophet was either false, and to be therefore put to death, or of God, and therefore any who disobeyed were to be put to death. When we speak of God's Word to mankind we are talking about absolute authority, and by definition there are no degrees of absolute. The Sadducees were a heretical cult, so in that sense I would say that they are indeed a good example of a "degrees of authority" attitude. 
. 
The references to the Septuagint among early church fathers were all based on the “letter of Aristeas”, a fable of 72 Jews who went to Alexandria and in 72 days individually made 72 translations of the Torah that matched each other word for word. Even those who claim that the early church fathers give validity to the LXX reject this fable, which was popularised (and possibly invented) by Philo and Josephus as propaganda for some translation in their day, and for that reason the term “Septuagint” was applied to various translations to give them credibility. An anti-christian heretic named Aquila made a translation in around A.D. 140 which was called a/the “Septuagint” (which however did not contain the Apocrypha). An Ebionite heretic called Theodotian in A.D. 180 presented a “correction of the original Septuagint”. Another Ebionite heretic called Symmachus made a translation in A.D. 211 which was also called a/the “Septuagint” (yet didn’t include the Apocrypha). The heretic Origen claimed to be “restoring” the Septuagint, from “as many different translations as there were manuscripts”, based on Aquila, Theodotian, Symmachus, and a few other manuscripts which he called “corrupted”. It is the text of Origen’s making that is our Septuagint of today, coming from the spurious codices of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and it was Origen who included the Apocrypha in his Septuagint, the first to do so it is said (and even Jerome said they should not be used to establish doctrine). 
. 
The heretic Augustine believed the Septuagint was a divinely inspired translation because of the mythical letter of Aristeas, but Jerome complained that this fabled original was now corrupted and lost, and only Origen’s text was available by then. Part of the claim to fame of Aristeas’ Septuagint was how exactly it corresponded to the Hebrew, whereas now people promote the modern Septuagint of Origen for almost the opposite reason. The Aristeas letter is the only reference to a Greek translation of the OT before Christ. The only pieces of Greek translations of the OT that date before Christ are a few fragments found in Egypt containing Deu. 23, 25:13, 26:12,17,19, 28:31-33, and 32:7. 
Of the 268 references to “as it is written” in the NT, few match the Hebrew OT; most do not match any ancient document word for word. The reason for this is plain: they were not meant to be word for word quotes, just as I might say “the Bible says God made the world”, when “God made the world” does not occur word for word anywhere in the Bible. The reason there are word for word matches in Origen’s Septuagint is simply because Origen’s Septuagint came after Christ, and in his compilation he “copied and pasted” from the NT (like someone inserting “God made the world” into the Bible). He also added names to genealogies to correct what he considered to be contradictions. 
In short, if God’s Word is preserved only through Origen, then God has not preserved his Word at all, and it is no longer to be found on planet earth. 
. 
The idea that the Hebrew OT was only preserved by anti-christian Jews seems to assume that Christian Jews didn’t exist, or that they didn’t preserve the original Scriptures at all, which is quite a strange idea. I believe that a remnant of faithful circumcised has always existed and always will exist (Paul specifically affirmed that he never taught Jews to not circumcise their children). The anti-christian Jews were probably those whom John, a Jew, meant when he said “who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan”. The idea that there were no good Jews is an old anti-semitic view, and it seems necessary to the claim that only anti-christian Jews held to the Hebrew canon without the Apocrypha. 
. 
The idea that Paul based doctrine on something present only in a translation sounds to me like Gale Riplinger claiming that the KJV “corrected” the original Hebrew (I’m not pro-KJV by the way (though not because of Gale Riplinger 🙂 )). The “jot and tittle” Jesus called unchanging referred to the letters and pen-strokes of the Hebrew. Just as a side-note, if Hebrew was not in fact a common language in the time of Christ, I would wonder why it was put on the cross by the Romans. The Roman centurion was surprised to hear that Paul could speak Greek, which would have been strange if the entire crowd was screaming at him in Greek. The NT was written in Greek, but it wasn’t necessarily what Christ spoke (for instance Paul specified that Christ spoke to him in Hebrew on the road to Damascus, and what Christ said in Hebrew is recorded for us in Greek). Christ refers to the “law, prophets, and psalms”, a threefold division kept in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint, and speaks of the martyrs “from Abel to Zacharias” - Urijah came later chronologically, but Zachariah is mentioned later, in Chronicles, which is placed last in the Hebrew order. All except the six shortest books of the undisputed canon are quoted from, but the Apocrypha, a much larger body of text, is never quoted from. They also have contradictions (for example saying that the captivity was not seventy years but seven generations), and false doctrine (such as exorcism by fish liver smoke, ahem). 
. 
If it is a misconception that the council of Trent canonised and made authoritative books which had before been read but not considered canonical or doctrinal, it at least is not a modern misconception. Dr. Cosin in 1657 (around 50 years after the council of Trent) says: “IN this Scholaftical Hiftory I give an Account of the Canonical and undubitate Books of Holy Scripture as they are numbred in the VI Article of Religion set forth by the Church of England, and have been recei- ved by the Catholick Church in all severall Ages sence the time of the Apoflles till the Church ot Rome thought fit compofe and drejfe up a New- Additional Canon thereof for themselves in their late Council of Trent, where it was one of the first things they did to lay this Foun- dation for all their New Religion which they built upon it; “That the Apocryphal Writings and Traditions of Men were nothing inferiour nor less Canonical than the Soveraign Dictates of God as well for the Confirmation of Doctrinal Points pertaining fo Faith, as for the Ordering of Life and Manners, but that both the One and the other ought to be embraced with the fame Affection of Piety and received with the like religious Reverence not making any difference between them.” (V. Decret. Con. Trid. Supra recitat {quoting from the council of Trent, quoted on the previous pages})” 
https://archive.org/details/scholasticalhist00cosiuoft/page/n11/mode/2up 
. 
About false prophets, yes, the prophets must be proven by miracles, “confirming the word with signs following”. As a prophet confirmed by signs is the only source of Scripture, so is the original prophet the only authority to establish canon, what is the Word of God to all mankind. The circumcised were given the prophets, to be confirmed by signs. The undisputed canon of the OT, and the NT, were both delivered to and confirmed to the faithful circumcised by signs of God, and every pen-stroke is inviolate, backed by thousands of witnesses; “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Using “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth” to say that majority or tradition decides what is Scripture and what is authoritative doctrine is the same line used by Roman Catholic friends of ours, which makes me wonder if modern Orthodoxy and Rome are sharing more of their doctrines.

· Reply · 1743420295

3 Replies

The Septuagint has made the doctrine of Sola Scripture more complicated than before. Yeshua and the Apostles used the Septuagint and it contains the Apocrypha. This has caused differences of opinion on whether or not the Apocrypha should be accepted as full pledged scripture or secondary?

· Reply · 1743433172

11 Replies

Many apparent contradictions are reconciled with the proper perspective. Often, people toss a book out because they don't want to adjust their perspective, and it is easier to just not deal with it.

· Reply · 1743455600

4 Replies

As far as I’m concerned the LXX is straight trash. From start to finish. Its authorship is a legend and almost certainly fictional. Their scholarship (whoever they really were) is highly suspect. And a great many of the chosen translations fallen the category of my usual complaints with translations, – they are cultural adoptions from the receiving language. Torah rendered as the irrelevant nomos instead of the appropriate Didache. Pagan terms stuffed into the text such as Hades, Ouranos, and Gaia. Theos in place of Elohim. Not to mention the replacement of YHWH with the generic Kurios.

There is evidence of an older version which contains the paleo Hebrew for the Divine Name with everything else in Greek. So it seems the later versions of the LXX were adapted to fit later tradition. Perhaps the changing traditional terminology was too but the completed texts of the LXX that we do possess are one step above rubbish.

· Reply · 1743812709

2 Replies

I put prayers for the dead in the same category as paul's baptism for the dead. There is no discussion of it. It seems to be a practice that was, but only LDS practice it now.

· Reply · 1744127478

3 Replies

Septuagint or not

Patrick Lauser

Mark Price

raphaelmalachi

Caleb Lussier

GidgetsMom

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26