Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?
I do not use it.Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?
Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?
The Septuagint existed prior to Christianity. See especially Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived at the time of Jesus, who spoke at length about it. So no, it is not true "that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books". All of the Apostolic Churches have always used the Septuagint as the old testament. To cast doubt on its use is to cast doubt on Christianity itself.
Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! (Isaiah 30:1-2)
And now therefore hear the word of the LORD, ye remnant of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt, and go to sojourn there; Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye feared, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid, shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die. So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there; they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As mine anger and my fury hath been poured forth upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so shall my fury be poured forth upon you, when ye shall enter into Egypt: and ye shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach; and ye shall see this place no more. The LORD hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day. (Jeremiah 42:15-19)
Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. (Jeremiah 44:26)
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break his arms, the strong, and that which was broken; and I will cause the sword to fall out of his hand. (Ezekiel 30:22)
That is not the reason to cast doubt on its accuracy. However, it is very useful in that it gives an early rendering of what those who translated took the Pentateuch to mean. It is, in other words, a reference book, and a unique one.Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?
I am more knowledgeable with Hebrew than with Greek, but I have studied both, and continue studying them. Luke 4:18 is one example, with Jesus' own words, of deviating from the Septuagint reading. There are others. It is true that many times the New Testament authors followed the Septuagint's wording. This may have been because it was already familiar to the Greek readership of that day, or because it was simpler than to retranslate it, or it may have been for other reasons. However, the very fact that they often followed the Septuagint's reading makes the times when they did not follow it the more interesting. It may indicate that they did not regard the Septuagint as infallible and/or perfect. It may mean that in specifically those cases where they deviated from its reading, the Septuagint was flawed or inferior. Whatever the case, it is a known fact that they did not always follow it.Also, though I'm not the one to ask which passages, there are passages in the New Testament that quote the Pentateuch instead of the Hebrew. I'll leave the rest to comment on what that implies.
For he said that he had heard Theopompus tell how when he was too rashly intending to introduce into his history some of the incidents from the law which had previously been translated, his mind was deranged for more than thirty days. And when the disorder abated he besought God that the cause of the mischance might be made plain to him. And when it was shown him in a dream that his desire to disclose the things of God to common men was misguided, he desisted, and thereupon recovered his reason.
I have plenty of reasons not to trust that, beyond the question of God's partiality. (As you probably know, I consider that verse (Romans 2:11) in context of the fact that he treats one person as justly as another, and that, particularly that he does not favor the Jew over the Gentile in the matter. The fact that he does have favorites, and that he did for many years favor the Children of Israel with a particular love is more than obvious in Biblical history. His creating of all things was for the express purpose of bringing the Elect to Himself. He chose, and created for the particular purpose, certain of us for his particular affection and his particular end of becoming the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God and the Dwelling Place of God.)I am more knowledgeable with Hebrew than with Greek, but I have studied both, and continue studying them. Luke 4:18 is one example, with Jesus' own words, of deviating from the Septuagint reading. There are others. It is true that many times the New Testament authors followed the Septuagint's wording. This may have been because it was already familiar to the Greek readership of that day, or because it was simpler than to retranslate it, or it may have been for other reasons. However, the very fact that they often followed the Septuagint's reading makes the times when they did not follow it the more interesting. It may indicate that they did not regard the Septuagint as infallible and/or perfect. It may mean that in specifically those cases where they deviated from its reading, the Septuagint was flawed or inferior. Whatever the case, it is a known fact that they did not always follow it.
The Septuagint may have been largely popularized by a document called "The Letter of Aristeas," which some scholars count as among the pseudepigrapha--the non-canonical books written during the three centuries prior to Christ when there were no prophets of God who were prophesying. Others consider the letter to be simply a fraud. The letter details the history of the Septuagint's translation, claiming that 72 eminent scholars were obtained for this, who translated it in 72 days.
Here's an interesting snippet I found near the end of one alleged translation of the Letter of Aristeas:
For he said that he had heard Theopompus tell how when he was too rashly intending to introduce into his history some of the incidents from the law which had previously been translated, his mind was deranged for more than thirty days. And when the disorder abated he besought God that the cause of the mischance might be made plain to him. And when it was shown him in a dream that his desire to disclose the things of God to common men was misguided, he desisted, and thereupon recovered his reason.
The part that I bolded seems questionable to my mind. God's entire mission is to reveal Himself to us--to all of us--without partiality. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons (see Acts 10:34; cf. James 2:9). This letter, therefore, seems to me like a fabrication.