Replies

Yes, that has struck me to be strange as well. In my mind, older "can" mean better, but it is not axiomatic. There obviously was that which is older than the Septuagint. I ask myself who was in the best position to make the call.
"Better" is a judgment call. Take for example the Alexandrians. Just because a certain text is older does it mean that it is better? Logically, the two ideas don't necessarily mesh.

I'll illustrate what I mean. If I were to take something like a judicial decision from the 1970s and Henry Blackmun's argument regarding Roe V Wade. It was bad law which was slanted by the views of the court of the day. If the exact same case were presented today, you would (hopefully) get a different decision, or at least one that respected what the law said rather than making up something which isn't in the constitution. Blackmun's decision was older than say Robert's decision would be. But, is it better?

In translating Scripture, there were apparently more manuscripts available to some of the modern Bible version translators than there were say in Erasmus or King James's day. I pick up a modern version and I will see words like "better manuscripts read..." Better is a judgment call and can be as easily slanted as the Supreme Court cases can be depending upon the personal views of the judge. In the case of Scripture, I think it is fair game to consider who it was making these decisions and also what was going on in the area where a variant portion of Scripture was found. These are more relevant than say "how old is is." Which would you rather have, a portion of Scripture translated by the Corinthians or a portion of Scripture translated by the earlier Ephesians? Or lets put it this way, which would you rather have an older portion of Scripture translated by the Laodiceans or something maybe a bit younger translated by the Smyrnans ro Philadelphians?

Personally, I believe that regardless of what version of Scripture one has, God has preserved His message to mankind. Our matter of faith concerning inerrancy is in the original manuscripts. You will have some variation in translations for a plethora of reasons. But the message has been preserved in total regardless if it is a "Protestant" Bible or a "Catholic" Bible. Other things have slipped into the latter which we believe muddy some of the waters, but if you want to lead someone to the Lord, the message of salvation is clear in both. The essentials are present.

Which gets us back to the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a translation. It was a commissioned work apparently made to go into the library at Alexandria. The Alexandrians had some issues and the commission wasn't made by the Jews (who were very careful in translating and preserving their own Scripture), but by a secular authority. I think some of these things need to at least be considered when one tries to discern Holy Spirit leadership on the issue.

Ultimately, God formed and decided the Canon. It would have been the Canon even if man had never compiled it into books. It wasn't Scripture because man said so (be they Hebrew or Christian), but because God inspired them as Scripture.

But God being God can be a bit surprising sometimes. For example, God allowed the originals to go to dust. Why would he do that? Well for two reasons. So we wouldn't worship paper/papyrus/lambskin, but pay attention to what was written on the media. But secondly, I believe He did this so that we would wrestle with the issue a little. Why? Because it causes us to ask questions about Himself. If God has decided the Canon, what characteristics would it have? Well, for one, it would be consistent - since He Himself is consistent. Books that destroy this harmony do not bear the mark of being inspired by Him and are therefore not Scripture. God could have written what is Scripture on a couple of golden plates and buried them in the woods - and the issue would be settled. But, He didn't. He wants us to struggle with the issue and to come down to a faith decision in Him and what we know about Him through Scripture. By faith, we believe that in spite of some additions which man has made which are not Scriptural, God has allowed all of us to have the books which He considers Scripture. Submission to and reliance upon the Holy Spirit teaches us the difference.

Thanks for all of your comments. They are very illuminating.

Personally, I believe that regardless of what version of Scripture one has, God has preserved His message to mankind.

Amen. If all I had available was a "Catholic" Bible, I would use it without thinking twice. The whole message is still there.

The Alexandrians had some issues and the commission wasn't made by the Jews (who were very careful in translating and preserving their own Scripture), but by a secular authority. I think some of these things need to at least be considered when one tries to discern Holy Spirit leadership on the issue.

This is one part that confuses me. Is it right that the actual translators were Alexandrian Jews? Is the idea then that they simply followed the orders of the secular Commissioners in which books to put in? Is it proper to say that translations made by Diaspora Jews were not as authoritative?

For example, God allowed the originals to go to dust. Why would he do that? Well for two reasons. So we wouldn't worship paper/papyrus/lambskin, but pay attention to what was written on the media. But secondly, I believe He did this so that we would wrestle with the issue a little. Why? Because it causes us to ask questions about Himself.

Yes, I fully agree. Not only is idol worship wrong, but it is too easy. God gave us an inquisitive nature and so He knew exactly what buttons to push to get us asking questions. It's no surprise at all that the Bible is the most analyzed work in the history of literature.