On Sunday I asked whether or not Christians should use the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) as a source for Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Today’s question is related: is the Septuagint divinely inspired?
In other words: did God inspire the formation of the Greek Old Testament for the nations in the same way that the formation of the Hebrew Bible guided the Jews?
Since this question is motivated by our blog tour discussing T. Michael Law’s When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible those who are reading the book may want to consult Chapter 4 where Law discusses The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates where there is textual evidence that some Greek speaking Jews thought of the Septuagint as the giving of a new Torah
In any of these discussions, the question isn’t whether or the translation itself is inspired (as the LXX is the result of translation), rather the question is whether or not the original inspiration communicated through the Holy Spirit as primary author, is divinely inspired.
It is, of course, logically fallacious to argue that because a dictation is perfect, a record of that dictation must also be. That is a non-sequitur.
The original insight provided by the primary author that that LXX documents, was divinely inspired – Yes. We have indirect access to that communication by way of a document which also saw the contribution of a secondary author.
The construction of the LXX by imperfect human hands (as secondary author) adds to the final work characteristic traces of both authors, from the primary author (source divinity and perfection), and the secondary author (human finish, limited insight, and evidence of labour). The inspiration behind the work may have been divinely perfect, however the work itself is only a mere reflection of that ..
If it makes any difference, St Augustine thought the LXX was inspired! The correspondence between St Augustine and St Jerome — two of the biggest stinkers in the early church — is fascinating. In the end, Augustine didn’t buy Jerome’s arguments for the “Hebrew truth” but prefered the LXX:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
“It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.”
I don’t know if I can actually keep my answer so short :), but here goes: “No!”
Philo thought it was as well. I tend to think not. It’s just a translation.
Might be a more accurate rendering of the originals though than the Massoretic text.
Re: Patricks comment that it (LXX) has more accurate renderings than the Masoretic.., It certainly has parts that are clearer because the language is more precise, less terse, than the Masoretic text. Accordingly, when read along side the Masoretic text, some of the problem readings associated with that text are actually straight forward.
I was wondering about this as well, and so I did a study of the ages of the patriarchs (last year I think). I compared the generations in the LXX (from Adam to Abraham) to the ages in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Text, the Book of Jubilees, and the Talmud. Not only was there disagreement on the generation of Cainan (reflecting the likelihood that Luke took some of his information from from the LXX), but those disagreements form a mathematical pattern through time. Each source has a numerical symmetry centered around Cainan’s generation, and the number of generations in each symmetry reflects the sequence in which each translation was created. But that wasn’t the most exciting part.
You see, some sources I found said the LXX was adapted from the SP, others say the other way around. Well the symmetries suggest that today’s SP was adapted from the LXX, that the LXX was adapted from an earlier (lost) SP, and that this earlier SP was adapted from the original Hebrew. It’s quite fascinating. My write-up can be found at http://www.geocreationism.com/history/cainan-and-the-bible-family-tree.html. (If I had done this research for a university, I would have published it)
So, to answer the question, was the LXX divinely inspired? In my opinion, not specifically. I believe that Moses wrote a Hebrew version that was clearly inspired, and that the committee that eventually derived the Masoretic Text from surviving versions of the Hebrew scripture, thousands of years later, most likely benefited from divine guidance as well. However, the changes made to the Hebrew Bible in creation of the early SP that I propose were not inspired, and so neither were the additional changes the LXX piled on top of that.
This does not mean the mere creation of the LXX was not inspired, but I do not believe the literal differences between it and the MT are divinely inspired. That said, I do believe it is clear that Luke’s usage of the LXX was divinely guided. As evidence, I point out Luke’s ability to write Cainan into Jesus’ lineage, in a way that is accurate historically, yet without asserting Patriarch status to him, which Moses appears to have written away. In fact, one reason I am convinced of this evidence, is because it answers the biblical difficulty some have with Luke’s inclusion of Cainan, suggesting Cainan’s exclusion in Genesis MT and inclusion in Luke are both inerrant… an otherwise powerful skeptic argument refuted in my mind.
So in my opinion, the answer is no, the LXX content is not inspired, but God has worked and inspired others through it regardless.
Considering how reliant the New Testament is on the Septuagint I do not see how prior can be inspired and the latter not.
Exactly. Why would you think from reading the New Testament that the Hebrew Masoretic text was inspired?