The Septuagint and Textual Criticism
Textual Criticism is a discipline that has gained much popularity over the last one hundred years or so, especially as related to the Bible of the Christian faith.
While this discipline has arguably been around since at least the late Middle Ages, there has seemingly been a distinct emphasis (among particular scholars, notably liberal Protestants) placed upon the Christian scriptures in recent decades.
I believe this concern and their approach is motivated by a number of factors—none of which are compatible with nor do they find their home within traditional, orthodox and catholic Christianity.
The purpose of textual criticism is to attempt to produce a text as close as possible to the original. Given this raw and simplistic definition, we can make a few observations regarding it within the context of the holy scriptures. And, as a point of emphasis, the existence and usage of the Septuagint (LXX hereafter) by Christ and the apostles (and the Orthodox, catholic Church) sheds both important and transformative light on this entire enterprise. Of the latter, I will make a few brief remarks and notes as well.
With that in mind, I firmly believe that textual criticism assumes and is dependent upon a few key, overarching concepts.
- The humanist principle of ad fontes: Ad fontes was a philosophical tenet of Renaissance humanism that literally translates from the Latin as “to the fountains,” meaning “to the sources,” or more specifically, “to the original source.” Inspired by the rediscovery of ancient, classical Greek works of philosophy and literature (due to the emigration of Greeks from the east after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in AD 1453), this principle dictated within the context of the Latin (“Western”) Church that Christians should return to their “original sources” in order to purify and reform the Church from perceived corruptions over the centuries. In the Reformation-era context (thanks largely to Martin Luther), this meant holding the holy scriptures to be the sole “source” for the Church, rather than the fuller historical context, that the Church arranged and put together the scriptures as part of its sacred tradition. It was a highly problematic move, one that has cost the West dearly over the last 500 years, producing schism upon schism. Going one step further, this principle also inspired the idea among Luther and his followers that the original text of the scriptures are only pure in their original manuscripts. For the Old Testament, this meant adhering to the Hebrew text. Unfortunately for Luther, this required using a medieval text (the Masoretic) that was over a thousand years newer than the Greek translation (the LXX) or even the Latin Vulgate (originally based on the LXX), which were already in use by the Church. Not only was Luther incorrect in assuming that the Bible was the source of the Church, but also in that the Hebrew Old Testament text available to him was more accurate or closer to the source than the Greek or Latin.
- A theology or scholarly viewpoint that discounts and places no faith in the Church or Tradition: While Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians are faithful to confess at least weekly “I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” such faith is absent among textual critics, due to the disregard for the inherent authority for the preservation of the scriptures within the Church (for example, within liturgical texts and the writings of the Church fathers). While Orthodox Christians believe that the Church is guided and preserved from error by the Holy Spirit and the very presence of Christ in the apostles and their successors (Who promised He would never leave us, and that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church), adherents of textual criticism cannot, by principle, believe in such a thing. The essential dogma of textual criticism is that the text has been corrupted (i.e., mistakes have crept in through copying errors or intentional alterations by monks, scribes, etc.). This is the party line that Bart Ehrman and others espouse, but such a viewpoint (criticism) only holds water within a Protestant context.
- Closely related to the last point is a belief that the Bible is the “Christian Koran”: Again, the “corruption of scripture” dogma of Ehrman and liberal Protestant scholars only makes sense within a Protestant context and through having a Protestant understanding of the Bible. According to Protestants (mostly regardless of which sect or stripe), the Bible is the only true/special revelation of God to humanity. As such, they are a “people of the book,” just as in Islam. However, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians are not bound by such constraints and therefore many of the “concerns” of textual criticism are irrelevant to us. For example, we do not of necessity claim that the scriptures are “inerrant”—that is, without mistakes or errors of any kind (this is distinct from the affirmation that the scriptures are true, which we hold to, which is sometimes called “infallibility,” though that word may imply that the Bible’s truths are subject to the logical standards of proof and falsification). Given that concession, the fact that a monk or copyist might have replaced the pronoun “they” with the more descriptive “the Gentiles” (in order to make the chanted word more clear in the liturgical setting it was always found) does not reveal a “corruption” of the text or some conspiracy regarding the original autographs, but rather the Spirit-guided common sense of a monk. Variant readings do not derail the faith of the Church, as might be cautiously hinted at within conservative, fundamentalist Protestant circles, nor do mistakes with regards to dates, names, places or other such things. The scriptures are a great witness to revelation, but they are not the only source of revelation, nor are they truly the “Word of God” (a phrase that most properly refers to Christ).
- And this leads to the final concept, and that is the fact that textual criticism relies upon a Nestorian Christology (and by deduction, Iconoclasm): Textual criticism precludes the possibility of accurate and/or faithful translation of a text, because it is believed this “corrupts” and “changes” the text in an irreversible and irreparable manner. Because of this (and related to the “inerrancy” remarks above), conservative Protestants will only claim that the “original autographs” in their original languages are truly “inspired” by God. This means that the English version of the Bible that everyone in their groups carries around are not actually the inspired “Word of God,” but rather a “best effort” translation of the actual Word of God. Word studies (in the original languages) become imminently more important for Protestants, as a result, since a translation can’t give us the same, exact meaning (or at least, an “inspired” meaning) of the text. From an Orthodox point of view, while there’s certainly nothing wrong with learning and studying the original languages of these ancient texts, it is not absolutely required in order to read and understand the text of scripture, as inspired by God. Rather, the interpretation of the Church is what’s missing. That said, this is Nestorian in the sense that it divides the translated words from their original, divine source (rather than seeing the translation as iconic or symbolic—in the classical, Greek sense—of the original words). To preclude the authenticity of translation is to preclude the authenticity of the Incarnation (and in fact, many Protestants will claim that Christ took on a human nature that was slightly different than ours, which is also Christologically heretical). Just as icons are true symbols of the saints they represent (and truly connect us with these saints in eternity), words and translations are true symbols of the original words, ideas and people found in the ancient text. The scriptures are not the ”Word of God,” but rather an icon of the Logos (Word) of God—Jesus Christ.
And so, building upon that last point, we can consider briefly the LXX—the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures made between the third and first centuries BC in Egypt.
The Orthodox Church considers the LXX to be the inspired scriptures of the Old Testament, even in light of the fact that they are (mostly) translations. This is, no doubt, primarily due to their authority and usage among Second Temple Jews, Jesus Christ (during his Advent ministry, as recorded in the Gospels), the apostles, and their immediate successors (the “early” Church fathers). In the New Testament, there are 320 direct quotations from the Old Testament. Of these, only five verses (1.5%!) appear to be sourced from a text that is at odds with or different from the wording in the LXX. At the very least, we could say the NT writers showed a strong preference for the LXX translation of the OT; that only seems fair. Beyond this point, however, there is much debate.
While there is little fanfare over the reality of the NT writers’ usage (and preference for) the LXX, they also many times show a “looseness” with interpreting the text of the OT that would make most present day Protestant exegetes cringe. There are many times where verses are quoted in part, “out of context,” dissected and combined with other verses (in different texts altogether) as well as paraphrased. There are instances where the NT writer was using a version of the OT that closely resembles the medieval Masoretic Text (MT) (perhaps four such instances, exclusively speaking, in the entire NT), but this almost seems random and isolated. In those instances, it seems the MT was chosen in order to best make (or support) the point at hand. What we don’t find, however, is a definitive belief in a single, original, authentic text. The behavior of the apostles—and the NT writers specifically—shows a more “fluid” approach to both the idea of “canon” and “original text.”
When the Dead Sea Scrolls (the manuscripts found near Qumran in the 1940s and beyond, hereafter DSS) are considered alongside the LXX, things become even more interesting (and problematic for proponents of textual criticism). There are numerous instances, for example, where the LXX and DSS align exactly in reading (throughout the OT scriptures), while also disagreeing with the medieval MT. For example, Genesis 1:9 reads “And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its gatherings, and the dry land appeared” in both the DSS (4QGenk) and LXX, but this passage is entirely missing from the MT. On the other hand, there are many verses or readings that make the DSS and MT to be in total agreement, while showing the LXX reading to be at odds with both (often with minor results, such as a change in exact grammar or phrasing, but not meaning).
So what does this mean? What this means is that there was not a single, authoritative, “original” text of the Old Testament scriptures, even in the first century AD (and perhaps even in the late centuries BC, when the LXX was translated and compiled). As such, the ad fontes and reductionistic approach of textual criticism is found wanting in light of such realities. The LXX does not show that the Greek translation was based upon the only version of the Hebrew scriptures, but that it was based upon a very popular one. Further, it shows that it is not necessary for the preservation, existence or propagation of the faith to have a single, authoritative text of the scriptures.
Finally, there is somewhat of an unspoken belief among Protestant scholars that Hebrew was a “sacred language” to the Judeans during the time of Christ and before. In other words, the scriptures (especially the original autographs) would have only been written in the Hebrew language, due to its supposedly divine quality. What we find with the DSS, however, is that even the most strict and “hardcore” of Jewish sects (probably the Essenes) was perfectly content with recording and transmitting sacred texts (including the scriptures) in multiple language, as the DSS were found in Greek, Aramaic and contemporary Hebrew renditions.
At the end of the day, textual criticism is an enterprise devoid of the Holy Spirit. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church—and the sacred tradition of the Church—are both guided and preserved by “the Helper” and “Spirit of Truth.” We are not bound and required to have a single, authentic, original manuscript of the scriptures in order to constitute and make sense of our faith, for our faith is personal and our truth is found in Christ Himself, Who is Truth.
The irony of all of this is that neither Protestants nor textual critics have been able to produce or demonstrate a single example of an “original autograph” of the Bible at any point in the history of either textual criticism or Protestantism. Assertions of inerrancy for such texts is essentially an argument from silence. What is the point in saying that a text is inerrant which we don’t actually have?
Vincent Martini has a BA in Philosophy from Indiana University and is an Orthodox convert / layman in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. He resides in northwest Arkansas.
It seems that very few folks realize the sources of their assumptions. Innerancy itself can be traced only.about a hundred years back to the arguments between liberals and fundamentalists IIRC.
Ironically, I heard one Protestant say in regards to the doctrine about the rapture, “if no one believed this doctrine 200 years ago, why should I give it any credence now?” If only they followed through with a whole host of others including those mentioned above.
A minor point– Textual criticism goes back at least to the third century with Origen’s compilation of the Hexapla, where divergences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint are marked. In the 4th century, when Jerome made the Vulgate to replace the Vetus Latina which was based on the Septuagint, he relied initially on the version of the Septuagint found in the Hexapla (with the critical remarks), but he eventually settled on using the Hebrew text for the final version of his translation, something that St. Augustine was apparently not pleased with. In any event, Origen’s comparison shows that the Hebrew text of his time already varied from the Septuagint and Jerome’s Vulgate generally agrees with the Masoretic text that is extant today in places where the Septuagint diverges. We should add to this that from the 5th century on in Syriac-speaking regions, Christians of all denominations, including the Chalcedonian Orthodox, generally accepted the Peshitta as the standard text of the Old Testament. The Peshitta sometimes agrees with the Septuagint (as in Isaiah and the Psalms), but often (as in the Pentateuch) it agrees with the Masoritic text instead.
I understand where you’re coming from on the Hexapla project of Origen (unfortunately, we don’t have any extant copies of this), but I think his project and approach differs considerably from that of, say, Bart Ehrman, and other modern day textual critics.
There’s an important difference and distinction between comparing and contrasting various manuscripts and traditions, for the sake of historical record and appreciation, and that of calling into question the validity of an entire religion due to some discrepancies in manuscripts. The type of textual criticism I’m attempting to criticize in this brief and broad post — perhaps I’ve failed? — is that of Ehrman and the German higher critical school, not that of Origen and even Orthodox scholars today who examine these manuscript traditions within the context of the Church.
When I referenced the Vulgate above, I wasn’t clear enough in that I meant the “Old Latin” text, and not that of Jerome (although he was rightly criticized by both Saint Augustine of Hippo and Patriarch Damasus I of Rome in his insistence on the Hebrew text and a more closed canon of books, as opposed to the Traditional Alexandrian canon).
The Peshitta shows the great reliability of the LXX in various places, and it also shows the existence of a different Hebrew/Aramaic textual tradition (now lost, IMO) alongside of it. I don’t think it “proves” that either tradition is better than the other — it is just an interesting reference point.
And to emphasize, my point is not to say the LXX is the only “valid” text of the OT — just that it is that which we’ve received (had traditioned to us) in the Orthodox-Catholic Church. This means that any textual criticism done by Orthodox Christians is not for the purpose of establishing some mythical “original text” or undermining the LXX (as many sadly do today), but for the sake of historical understanding and appreciation.
As others have mentioned, I love the fact that — as an Orthodox Christian — I can study textual criticism, history, etc. and not “worry” that my Faith will be undermined or shaken in any way. Point of fact, I study this kind of stuff (textual criticism, manuscripts, canonization, apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works, etc.) more than anything else… but it is the motive behind it, and the practical outcomes of such studies, that should separate Orthodox Christians from everyone else.
Our faith is not in a book or series of books; it is in Christ, the true Word of God.
As a lot of the comments here show, the tone of your essay made it seem as though you were attacking the very project of textual criticism itself as being essentially Protestant and were trying to claim the LXX as the definitive Orthodox version of the Bible. As a future project, you might want instead to consider writing an essay illustrating how textual criticism is much more compatible (and fruitful!) with an Orthodox context, in contrast to the serious problems it causes for some Protestants. While Origen, Jerome, and other earlier practitioners of textual criticism might not have shared modern Evangelical notions about ‘the inerrency of the original autographs’ or whatever, they were very much concerned with determining the ‘best’ text to use, something that does presuppose that translations and transmission can introduce mistakes into a text and that some translations convey the meaning of scripture better than others. Another thing that you might need to reply to in such an essay is Fr. John Behr’s assertion that as Christians we are very much “people of the book”, in the sense that scripture is the basis for everything we know theologically– his book The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death is basically an extended discussion of what this means in an Orthodox context…..
I feel a bit conflicted about this piece. There’s a big difference between rejecting textual criticism as necessarily being central and primary to one’s hermeneutic and dismissing it entirely as not only without value, but dangerous to the point of spawning heresy.
Whether we are or we are not “the people of the Book” (which seems like a Modernist Category with very little value to even be worth debating), no one would claim that the Scriptures are not central to the life of an Orthodox Christian. Our divine liturgy and our other sacred services are almost exclusively composed of quotations of the Scriptures. We have prescribed daily readings and instruction based on those readings.
True, we rely on the Patristic tradition to understand those texts, but a great many of those Fathers of the Church were scholars and made use of every available method of knowledge and wisdom to know God and his Evangel better. I am hard pressed to believe that any of the Three Hierarchs would be today advising us to avoid these academic studies entirely. The problem is not textual criticism, the problem is the intentions and motivations to which Protestants put textual criticism — much like there being nothing inherently wrong with biology or astro-physics except when put into the hands of atheists and natural materialists who have an agenda which distorts the quality of their scholarship.
More to the point, much of this piece points out how problematic textual criticism is for the foundational principles of Protestantism (sola scriptura, Biblical inerrancy, the literal hermeneutic, &c.) and yet insists that rather than adopt textual criticism for the express purpose of illustrating to Protestants that the only way to truly make the Bible the foundation of your faith is to root it in the tradition of the Church from which it was brought into being, we must treat this technique as though it were dangerous to our position. It seems entirely backwards.
While I agree that, especially in the English speaking West, and especially for we converts out of Protestant traditions, it is important to be reminded just how distinct the Orthodox tradition is from the Protestant when it comes to our understanding of the Scriptures, it seems somewhat off the mark to be attacking a technique instead of an intention.
Jim John,
I agree with you, actually, that the Scriptures are central to Orthodoxy and that we can approach them and understand them better through scholarship. I apologize that this did not come out more clearly in this piece — it was done with a very broad and high-level focus. I failed to include enough disclaimers, it seems.
That said, I don’t see how I’ve shown textual criticism is “dangerous to our position” as you’ve mentioned in your comments. On the contrary, textual criticism shows that the Orthodox Church is “safe” in the light of any scrutiny when it comes to the manuscript traditions that comprise the Holy Scriptures. Why? Because we’ve received the Scriptures through Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, in the Body of Christ.
It is in the context of the Church and Her worship that these writings truly come alive and are best understood and received, and this textual tradition is one that has been handed down to us and preserved by the Holy Spirit and by holy men.
There was no “corruption”; no conspiracies; no suppression of the truth. That’s the BAD kind of textual criticism I’m complaining about… not general scholarship and historical investigation (which I rather enjoy).
In the end, my purpose in this brief (and broad) post was to call into question the intentions behind modern, protestant (including Ehrman) textual criticism — not Scriptural scholarship and investigation as a whole. Sorry that wasn’t more clear.
I was just about to make comments similar to what Jim John Marks wrote above, but after rewading JJM’s comments, I’ll just rest. However, I think this is a good write. I greatly appreciate this blog site.
I agree completely with Samn! and JJM. After reading Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture I let out a sigh of relief: good thing the church got that stuff sorted.
More seriously, there is an irony in stating that we don’t treat the Bible like the Koran while in the same breath arguing that the Septuagint is the only real Bible. The early church was very much aware of textual critical concerns and was largely not bothered by them. The Peshitta and the Vulgate are fine translations within their context and the difficult task of reconciling their textual variants must be undertaken. We are not however locked into the “quest for the original text” in the way that Protestants are because we do not believe in that view of inspiration. Simply put, textual criticism is a normal Orthodox enterprise and shouldn’t scare us one bit.
Nathaniel,
I’m not sure if your comments are directed at me or someone else, but I will effort a response regardless.
I never said that the Septuagint is the only “real Bible” (whatever this means?). I said it was based on a very popular textual tradition at the time, and that there were others as well. I said that the Church (receiving through the tradition of both Christ and the apostles) has received the LXX as the *inspired* Old Testament Scriptures — in spite the fact that they are largely translated and that they are different from other contemporary and later manuscript traditions of the OT. If I wasn’t clear on this, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I agree with you that I’m glad we don’t have to worry about the “messiness” of textual history somehow undermining our Faith; thank God for the Church, indeed. Thank God for Tradition and the faithfulness of holy men to preserve and tradition these writings to us over the centuries, in the Church (in the writings of fathers and through Liturgical usage).
I agree with you that scholarship and historical investigation into the history of the texts of Scripture is part of Orthodox Tradition (after all, that’s how I came to write about this subject!). However, the textual criticism I’m writing about (or trying to write about) in this post is that which is searching for a lost text, due to corruption, conspiracy and a lack of God’s involvement (from their perspective).
We know better; we know that the Holy Spirit lives and works in the life of the Church and that Christ has not left us to try and figure things out on our own. We have nothing to worry about when it comes to textual criticism somehow undermining our Faith or the Church. That’s the main point I wish to bring across.
I’m not scared by textual criticism (even the bad kind). I *do* think it is rather silly and misses the boat completely, however (when done in the way Ehrman and others do it, from an almost Deistic perspective, and from a perspective that tries to claim our entire Faith is THE RESULT OF the Bible, rather than a Church that has preserved and compiled the Scriptures through the guidance of the Holy Spirit).
Actually, the LXX is NOT “the *inspired* Old Testament Scriptures” for the Orthodox. And that is precisely my point. The LXX has been approved for use in the Greek speaking churches. The Syrians have approved the Peshitta. The Ethiopians have their own OT canon. And Western Rite Orthodox are approved to use the Vulgate.
There *are* differences between all these canons, but they are all approved and I have never heard of any talk of rejecting any of them. Even the Masoretic text has been approved for use even though it is too short. I just think that any move to assert that the LXX is “the *inspired* Old Testament Scriptures” is going to fall flat in Orthodoxy.
I honestly haven’t a clue what your point is, Nathaniel.
The Septuagint textual tradition is an inspired translation of “Old Testament” Scriptures.
This textual tradition has been received by Orthodox Christians — from Christ and the Apostles — as an “inspired” and “authoritative” translation of the “Old Testament” Scriptures.
There are various OTHER textual traditions, as you’ve mentioned (and as I mentioned in the original article, and in my comments above).
The LXX is not the *ONLY* “valid” edition of the “Old Testament” Scriptures, but it is the one that I’ve received, as an Orthodox Christian in the Church of Antioch. Canonization and tradition-ing of the Scriptures was often done at the diocesan/arch-diocesan level, as you’ve also perhaps alluded to.
It is manifestly obvious and without need of defending that the Orthodox Church (not the Assyrian Church of the East, nor the Ethiopian or Coptic communions, nor the Latin/Roman Church or their variants) has received and approved as “inspired Scripture” the Septuagint textual tradition and canon.
I don’t remember ever claiming, hinting at or implying in any way — in either the article above or in my comments — that we should seek to reject EVERY OTHER textual tradition BUT the Septuagint, as you seem to be asserting. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
The claims I’ve made (or are attempting to make) are:
1. The Septuagint translations and compilation were largely based upon *one of* the most popular Hebraic/Aramaic manuscript traditions at the time — but not the ONLY one.
2. There were other OT textual traditions — both in the time of Christ and afterwards — that both corroborate and show variant readings when compared to the LXX. Some of these have been lost to history, in my opinion (such as the Hebrew texts that Jerome and possibly Origen had at their disposal — I don’t believe the MT is a faithful transmission of these in entirety, but that it was heavily revised and modified by the rabbis over the centuries).
3. The translation and compilation of the Septuagint textual tradition was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as testified to by numerous Saints (e.g. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Augustine of Hippo).
4. There are other manuscript traditions of the OT that are still “inspired Scripture” despite being at variance in places with the LXX (and/or MT), and are in no way “hindered” in their ability to show forth Christ, despite these differences (no more than an individual priest’s homily is a distortion of the message of Christ when he is exegeting or commenting on the text of the Gospels, for example).
5. Translation does not remove “inspiration,” even when done loosely or in paraphrase (so long as it is guided by the Spirit and done within the “safety” of the Church). To claim otherwise is Nestorian/Iconoclastic.
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm
In his book The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia very simply and clearly sets out the position of the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint : ‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’
http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/scripture/septuagint
“The Septuagint is the official version of the Old Testament used by the Orthodox Church.”
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/articles/rediscovering_old_testament_christianity/
“The Old Testament known to the first centuries of the Church—that of the Septuagint text—was in many ways quite different from that known today by the majority of English-speaking Christians. The Orthodox Church, however, has always maintained that the older Septuagint text is the Christian Old Testament. It is here alone that the full message of the first Scriptures concerning the Trinity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation can be found..”
Etc. Etc. Etc.
If you say that the LXX is an inspired textual tradition, or even that it is the best of the inspired textual traditions, I’m with you 100%. I’m just hesitant to say it is the only one.
At heart here is the nature of what it means to talk about the scripture as sacrament. Is the Masoretic text sharp as a two-edged sword? Yes. It is probably more like a dagger. But it can still cut to the quick when used with skill. The LXX however is the full broadsword.
Agree
Vincent,
Thank you for your article. I wanted to highlight something you said in response to JJM,
“It is in the context of the Church and Her worship that these writings truly come alive and are best understood and received, and this textual tradition is one that has been handed down to us and preserved by the Holy Spirit and by holy men.
There was no “corruption”; no conspiracies; no suppression of the truth.”
This seems to be your reference point and foundation concerning your argument. Protestant stripes were created in that they saw very much so, “corruption” and “conspiracies” and the “suppression of truth” within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox system. You mentioned Scripture concerning Christ’s and the Spirit’s role in preservation. You are assuming this is in regard to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy tradition, not in the Universal (C)hurch in general. You seem to be reading your theology into those texts instead of taking them as a promise of Christ to keep the Church from being removed from existence. As Protestants (nay, Evangelicals) often stress too much the necessity of “inerrant autographs” (which we do not have) you must agree that if men were inspired to write Holy Writ in time, there must be an original document in the particular language and setting God intended to create His Scripture in and we must understand that translations and scribal errors do alter the text (side note, the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text because people couldnt speak Hebrew anymore, how could the LXX or any transcription be more accurate than its exemplar?). Now that being said, guys like Ehrman take that to mean their whole system of faith (he was Evangelical at one point!) is to be overturned. That is too extreme and he is basing his faith on proof instead of trust in Christ. Also, note that Ehrman is the exception to the rule. You must also understand that the search for the originals is no longer the primary role for textual criticism. I would suggest reading D.C. Parker’s Introduction to textual criticism. You seem to be referencing out of date textual critic anthems as most do not hold to any possibility of recovering autographs. If I could sum up my point, you criticize the Protestant for relying too much on Scripture for guidance, yet you do the very same thing by relying too much on tradition and history. You must understand that sinful man (which is what the Church is made up of as all are fallen) will bring corruptions into to the Church just as much as a scribe will bring to a translation or transcription. The Catholic Church especially has much too long of a track record of corruption to claim any corner on “truth” or “orthodoxy”. The whole point of the Reformation (Protestantism) was to break from, what at the time was, a (c)hurch more Satanic than Christ-like. Any history book of the Papacy from A.D. 500 to 1600 will tell you that. Overall, thank you for your article. I enjoyed your perspective regardless of differences of opinion.
Thanks for your comments. My thoughts are as follows:
These are powerful, sweeping assertions. Can you share some examples, with proof, to back them up? By the way, if your intent is to malign the medieval, Latin church of the West, I would join you in many, many criticisms of not only their belief and practice (but I’m sure there were a fair amount of faithful believers in their midst, despite these issues).
The Orthodox Church is the “universal church in general,” though. I freely admit that (from your perspective) this is simply my perspective, but relativism was never my strong suit. There is — and can only be — one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. There is one faith, one Lord and one Baptism. There is only one Body of Christ, for Christ is one. The history of THE Church is the history of the Orthodox Church (with perhaps the schismatic continuation of the Latin/Western churches post-Florence being excepted). I’m not attempting to “read into” the text of Holy Scripture any personal opinions of my own. You must understand that the Scriptures belong to the Church because it is within the context of the Church (and Her worship, liturgy, etc.) that they find their understanding, definition, preservation and so on, through the Holy Spirit.
I realize that — at some point in time — there was one “autograph” of, say, the Gospel According to Saint Luke. However, it is not essential to the Faith that we have this original autograph in our possession, nor is it necessary for our surety that the Luke we have today is the Luke as Luke wrote it. We believe in the Church and in Christ’s promise to preserve our Faith through the Holy Spirit and His everlasting presence.
With regards to the translation of the LXX, it was translated for the sake of the Jewish diaspora (which outnumbered the Judah-ites living in Palestine by a great deal at this point in history) by the aid of “Hebrew” experts. There were still experts in this already-evolving language, but they were of the priestly/scribal class and isolated in Palestine. The translation was not done by simpletons or those ignorant of the language, and we have every reason to believe that it was an exceedingly accurate and faithful translation. It is, in fact, the oldest edition of the Old Testament Scriptures we have. The medieval Masoretic texts should be judged according to the canon of the LXX, not vice versa (especially considering who compiled/composed said Masoretic Text).
I realize Ehrman is not the prime example of an evangelical/Protestant scholar, but his dependence upon their presuppositions is clear. If the “Bible” is the FINAL (or even sole) authority for all matters of faith and life, then having one that is corrupted, altered and unreliable should undermine one’s faith. I think he hits the nail precisely on the head. However, this is not an issue for Apostolic Christianity. This isn’t about “proof vs. Christ,” but simply abiding by the rules of Sola Scriptura. If we can’t know for sure that the Bible is reliable as an authoritative guide, what authority do we have left but ourselves (the individual). The results of such is what you see in mainline Protestantism today (and over the last several decades); the chaos wrought is both astounding and informative.
This is an important point, and I thank you for bringing it up. However, I’m aware of the various strands of this overall discipline, I just chose to focus on one aspect of it within the scope of this post. Again, though, if one believes that the Bible is the sole and/or final authority for all matters of faith and life, willingly admitting that we have no clue if the Bible we have today is entirely accurate is a rather shocking admission. It undermines the entirety of the evangelical/Protestant viewpoint on authority in one fell swoop.
I think it’s a fallacy to assert one can rely “too much” on an authority in matters of Truth. This is also a rather binary way of thinking — not everything is “either/or,” nor are things this simplistic. I don’t think my criticism of Protestantism is that they rely “too much” on the Scriptures, but rather that they mis-use the Scriptures in a way that they’re not intended. Not only this, but also the fact that Protestants ignore the voice of the Spirit in the Church over the centuries and continually innovate and alter the Faith in various and significant ways, all in the name of Biblical fidelity — while in the same breath admitting that we can’t be sure if we have the 100% exact text of the Bible, and without really being able to satisfactorily account for their canon (i.e. table of contents), given the significant fact that it differs from both the Latin and Orthodox Church’s canon of Scripture. The Scriptures are the book of the Church, and it is in the Church (which is the Body of Christ, and which — in one sense — transcends both time and place) that they find their true meaning and understanding. It is not enough that we have the Scriptures, or even that we read them, but that we rightly understand them — and the way to do this is in harmony with the mind of the Church through the centuries.
One contention I’d have here is that we do not believe all men are inherently sinful, but that we are all inheritors of the consequences of Adam’s sin (i.e. death and corruption) — however, that’s beside the point of this post so I won’t digress further on this issue. From the Orthodox perspective, the Church — as the Body of Christ — is theanthropic. Just as Christ is one Person with both a Divine and Human nature (without confusion, mixture or division), so too is the Church both Divine and Human. The fact that the Church is comprised of human beings does not discount the reality of the Church’s experience as the Body of Christ and of Her intimate union and communion with the all-Holy Trinity. We fully admit that the Church is filled with people doing stupid, sinful things at times. However, this does not deny the Church the ability to also both promote and preserve the one, true Faith of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, while there might have been copyist’s errors or other mistakes over the centuries with the various textual traditions of Scripture, we believe that the Scripture as we have it today in the Orthodox Church (the Byzantine Text, essentially) is a faithful transmission of the text of Scripture, through the faithful, preserving hands of monastics and scribes in union with the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Again, these are just empty assertions more akin to ad hominem than anything else. Point of fact, the Orthodox Church is not the Latin church, and I doubt whatever corruptions you’re alluding to here would have any bearing on the Apostolic Faith. I’m also tempted to caution you about the blasphemy you’re approaching, with such disdain for the Body of Christ, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure what the “Papacy” of “AD 500 to 1600″ has to do with either this post or with the Orthodox Church. Perhaps you’re not aware of the history, piety and theology of the Orthodox Church? I would encourage you to look into these matters further.
Thank you.
In peace,
Vincent M.