BEN: The use of the LXX in the NT is a bit of a mystery to many Christians who study the Bible. They ask questions like if the original Greek and Hebrew is so important for understanding the Bible, why did various NT writers rely on a translation like the LXX? How is that different from us relying on a good English translation? Of course, in the case of some like Paul, it seems clear he knew both the Hebrew and the Greek text of the OT, and relies on one or the other depending on which version best suits his purposes. And probably sometimes, as the work of Ross Wagner shows, he did his own translation of the Hebrew. This is different from say Luke and others who don’t appear to know any Semitic languages and rely instead on the Greek OT. Can you help my readers understand the importance of the LXX, especially since, it was relying on a Hebrew original that considerably pre-dates the Masoretic text (cf. the Qumran text of the OT which also differs from the MT). Do you think 2 Tim. 3.16 is talking about or includes the LXX?
MICHAEL: I think Paul is talking about all of the material that a faithful Jewish community (and the emerging Christian communities) would call “Scripture.” That is, I don’t think Paul was asking his audience to distance themselves from any textual tradition. That would have been a fool’s errand. (How would you even attempt it in days of hand copying, or without a means to know what text existed where?) As you sketch in your question, Paul shows no concern to marry himself to any textual family / tradition. Given that reality, he wouldn’t be asking his readers to do what he himself wasn’t doing.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In