Should we trust the Septuagent like the Holy Spirit does?

trueseek1's picture

Recently read that the men who were under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote down what we call New Testament, quoted almost always the Septuagent version of the Old Testament even when it disagrees with the Hebrew version even slightly. Wondering are we "liberals" who use modern scholarly techniques to lower the trustworthiness of the Greek Old Testament translation (LXX) by trusting the Hebrew version instead? Can not understand how I as a Bible believing Christian can justify such a move since I believe the New Testament authors were under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they quoted from the Septuagent version of the Old Testament? It seems also the early Church fathers almost exclusively quoted from the same greek translation to strongly point to Christ as the fulfiller of all old testament prophecies. Eusebius was specially illuminating on this one recently.

Appreciate any other Bible believers' viewpoints on this one.

humbly,

NTC's picture

Apocrypha

First off, I would like to say, the Spirit of God is infallible, with no errors. God cannot sin. However, since the books of the bible were written by men, and copied by men, and re-copied by men, and translated by men of other languages, the potential for errors is magnified - - like the "telephone game" we played as kids. However, your question seems to be directed at the selection of the canon, not translations, or errors within books of the canon.

The Septuagint (named for the 70 authors who compiled it) and Apocrypha (Greek word meaning "hidden things") have drawn much attention and gained more popularity within the last 50 years. In addition to the early church fathers usage of Apocryphal books (Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, Enoch, etc.), the 1948 Dead Sea Scrolls discovery confirms canonical usage of these books among the Essene Jews during the 1st century.

The main counter-argument for the current popularized 66 books of the bible is the Muratorian Fragment, dated 190 AD, which made no mention of the OT Apocrypha in its list... albeit overlooking the fact this document was only a fragment of its original. Many 18th, 19th, and 20th century theologians have also argued against the OT Apocrypha, usually using some kind of mathematical formula for computing 39 as some "Legalistic / Mosaic Law" magical number, and 27 as some "Grace & Mercy" numerology, without necessarily directly refuting or answering the rationales presented by early church fathers Jerome, Eusebius, etc.




Advertisements