Protestant Christian View of Septuagint
I am interested in the specific viewpoint of Protestant Christians regarding the Septuagint.
While both the Orthodox and Catholic traditions include books from the Septuagint in their Old Testament canons, my understanding is that Protestants generally prefer the Masoretic Text. However, I’ve noticed there are books included in the Masoretic Text that differ from those in the Septuagint.
Furthermore, in certain books like Esther, the Septuagint version provides a much deeper understanding of the story through its additions. Given that the early Christians used the Septuagint, and considering the possibility that the Greek translators were divinely inspired, how do Protestants view the authority and use of the Septuagint?
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I have asked this question of a few Protestant teachers. The answer I received is that "this is our denominations belief that this one is the divinely inspired one". Which isn't said in a way that believing in one or the other is a guarantee of salvation or hell, merely that "our group has chosen to pick one that we organizationally believe is correct, and this is the one".
They encourage reading the old texts, and the original greek and hebrew if you can learn it or pick up inline translations.
I was introduced to the phrase "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty". You're allowed to think as you please, as long as you can agree on some points that folks feel are absolutely essential.
For almost all Protestants I am aware of, the essentials are : scripture, not tradition is authoratative (solo scriptura); you must believe Jesus is the messiah he claimed to be (solo fidelis) in order to enjoy the promised benefits; and that you can not obligate God to give you any "specialer" status than the basic Christian, because Salvation is a gift so precious you will never be able to afford it (solo gratia).
This question should rather focus on the concept or doctrine of Canon, a book or tradition that puts limits on revelation and divine authority, comparing it with the Apocrypha (larger number of books than the Hebrew Bible canon). The Protestants blindly follow the Sanhedrin Rabbinic Judaism canon of Hebrew Bible by banning the apocrypha.
Though, initially Luther and all reformers included Apocrypha in the bible. It was only banned after Bible societies start removing them, and slowly that became an implicit tradition among them. It's more about following certainty which is only obtained by clinging to existing tradition, hence they follow the Masoretic Text, and the Rabbinic "canon", and proudly appeal to their authority.
There is no logic in claiming the LXX is inspired just as it's useless to support Hebrew Text inspiration, because that term or doctrine is itself loaded with assumptions and limitations. How do you qualify such doctrine without limiting the range of books to form a "canon" of inspired text, and all other books non-inspired? That concept should be ignored.
Perhaps the Catholics accept the LXX as inspired, but perhaps this is why the Protestants want to keep more restricted canon to be more certain in their views. I want both Catholics and Protestants to recognise the irrational limitations in the concept of Canon, and research the whole range of writings in late second temple period to understand New Testament.
0 comment threads
1 comment thread