APRIL 2011

    The album we bought at the time was Magic Steps (1998), which is ideal and authentic Renaissance or soft-Celtic music without any phony attempts to over-symphonize it. The members that have comprised Cantiga over the years utilize a variety of instruments including fiddle, cello, flute, fife, recorder, harp, lute, charango, and a variety of medieval percussion instruments.

    Soon after we also picked up Otter’s Pool (2001). The songs encompass Europe, sometimes reflecting English or Celtic melodies, sometimes French or Spanish, and sometimes generating more of an eastern European or Gypsy style. The array of instruments is delightful and can produce a rich, full tone, such as in, “The Queen’s Alman,” whereas other songs feature a single instrument such as in “The Parting Glass,” or a simple combination of instruments, as in “Jigs.”

    The variety of sound is remarkable. Some songs are more haunting (“Aran Boat Song,” “Brawls,” “Cantiga 100”) while others are simply playful (“La Rotta della Manfredina,” “Tarantella,” “Harlequin Hornpipe”). Some songs are airy and contemplative (“La Volta,” “Miss Judge's Jig,” “Childgrove,” “Ja Nuns Hons Pris,” “The Amulet”), and some are simply ideal Renaissance “fare” (“Jigs,” “Reel,” “Cantiga,” “Country Dances”). My favorite songs include the beautiful “Kalenda Maya,” the numinous “Otter’s Pool,” and the charming, “Branle Des Chevaux.”

    Cantiga has other albums that I have had less exposure to, such as Once Upon a Time (1995) and Martha’s Dragon (2004). Cantiga creates excellent ambiance music for a variety of occasions. The sound feels eminently natural and innocent, clean and pure. It is perfect for a metaphorical foray, albeit romanticized, into the Renaissance period.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: What does it mean that Christ died for you?  1 Corinthians 15:3

      Different people can use the same words, but mean entirely different things by them.

      In our March 2011 edition we talked about the “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” of Christ.  This is fundamentally different from other interpretations of Christ’s suffering and death, and what effect Christ’s work has for believers.  In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul places an individual’s understanding of the atonement as an essential element of the Gospel when he says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”  The New Testament frequently reflects the truth that Christ died “for you” or “for us” (Rom 5:6, 8; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:2; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet 2:21; 3:18).  Three views of what specifically this means have prevailed, and knowing exactly which one you adhere to is critical.

      First, the Example theory (a.k.a., “Moral Influence Theory,” “Subjective Theory”) asserts that Christ died as an example of someone who was faithful to God despite continual opposition and untold suffering.  An overlapping strain of this view asserts that Christ’s death reveals the extent of God’s love for humanity.  The example of Christ’s faithfulness and the depth of God’s love motivates the believer to reciprocate love back to God, to endure hardship and to sustain a Christ-like devotion to God.  The Example view tends to be propounded by liberal theologians, and discounted by most evangelicals.  Yet, Christ is clearly held up as an example in Scripture (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Tim 1:16; 1 Pet 2:21), and he encourages others to follow in his footsteps (Matt 4:19; 11:29; 16:26).  Christ stands as an exemplar of someone who literally obeyed God’s will to death, and did not in any way equivocate on this mission.  Nor did he allow anyone to stand in the way of his faithfulness to God: he perceived even mild resistance to the idea of his death by his own disciples as direct opposition from Satan himself (Mark 8:38).  The weakness of this view, however, is that it often portrays Jesus as only an example of someone who suffers well and endures excruciating adversity, and as no more than that. 

      Another understanding of the death and atonement of Christ is the Victory theory.  This idea emphasizes that Christ’s death and resurrection are a triumph of God’s power over evil, and that the authority over humanity and the world shifts back from Satan to God in Christ (John 16:33; Rom 8:37; 1 Cor 15:54-57; Heb 2:14; 1 John 5:4).  This view faded because of thorough criticism from Anselm, the eleventh century Archbishop of Canterbury.  However, it has resurfaced in the more modern Christus Victor movement, spearheaded by the work of Gustaf Aulén (1879 – 1977) (Leon Morris, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, p. 101).  This view addresses Christ’s victory over evil in a cosmic sense, but seems weak on explaining how an individual can appropriate that victory, forgiveness, and salvation. 

      The third predominant view of the atonement is the Substitutionary view.  This view essentially asserts that Christ suffered the penalty for humanity’s sins and satisfied God’s wrath toward mortal sin (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 9:27-28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10).  Christ completely earned forgiveness from God, and makes that forgiveness available to all (Matt 26:28; Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Eph 1:7).  The believer appropriates that redemption and forgiveness through faith in Christ (Mark 2:5; John 1:12; Acts 26:18; Rom 3:21-28; 1 Pet 1:3-9).  The strength of this third view is that it includes both the Example view and the Victory theory yet goes the next step of affirming the unique role of Christ as sacrifice for sin and redeemer of humanity. 

      Understanding the “for you” language in the New Testament is more than mere semantics.  Rather, it points to a need to comprehend exactly what all it means when we say that Christ died “for us” or “for you.”  Many U. S. soldiers in foreign lands have died “for us.”  In this case “for us” means as a representative of us and on behalf of our country.  I can even say with great gratitude that military women and men that I have never known and will never meet have given their life “for us” to secure our freedom, ideology, and lifestyle.  As noble as this is, and as grateful for their service as I am, this is still different from everything encapsulated in the concept that Christ died “for us.”  Also, Bible versions need to be careful how they translate certain verses.  The NASB rendering of 1 Cor 8:11 refers to “The brother for whose sake Christ died," whereas the original simply says “The brother for whom Christ died.”  By adding the phrase, “for whose sake,” the NASB runs the risk of confusing the issue even more.

    So, the question is, Did Christ die to give believers a sense of victory, or just a positive example? Or did his death give believers these things plus permanent forgiveness from sin and righteousness standing before a completely holy God? Is Christ just example or victor, or is Christ example, victor and redeemer?  Anyone who does not understand that they can have all these things in Christ, in reality, has nothing.

BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – Mal’s First Sight of Serenity

    *** WARNING: The following article contains spoilers for the Firefly episode “Out Of Gas.” ***

    Do you remember when you laid eyes on your first bike?  It was a vehicle that represented self-fulfillment and independence.  What about seeing your first car?  It may not have looked like much to others, but for you, it was a delightful moment of dawning freedom. 

      A Browncoat enjoys such a moment vicariously in the episode “Out Of Gas” when Malcolm Reynolds first sees a run-down Class 3 Firefly transport, which would become his own freedom and serenity.  This moment reflects one of the most important themes of the show, namely, finding one’s home and identity in a lonely and hostile world.

    It’s a flashback scene: Mal is at a used ship lot, looking to pick out a suitable, and affordable, cargo craft.  The salesman with Mal points toward a towering and impressive ship.  “Yep, real beauty ain’t she?  A right smart purchase, this vessel.”  But Mal’s gaze has wandered elsewhere.  “I tell ya’ what," the salesman continues.  “You buy this ship, treat her proper, she’ll be with you for the rest of your life.”  Though the man says these words about one ship, Mal’s heart has already settled on another, a used and abandoned derelict.  What is poetic about this moment, is that his first glimpse of the craft that he would name Serenity, isn’t while she soars majestically through space, or descends gracefully into a planet’s atmo.  Rather, the ship is just lying there, helpless and lifeless, deserted in the desert.  It is Inara, earlier in the episode, who actually articulates Mal’s feelings when she admits to Simon, “I love this ship . . . I have from the first moment I saw it.” 

      The entire episode of “Out Of Gas,” one of my favorites, is a masterful stroke of movement between a current crisis and pertinent flashbacks.  But the primary narrative flow is about the symbiotic interplay between captain and ship, as shown by the closing shots of the teaser, where Mal’s own blood from a gun wound drips though the grating of Serenity’s floor.  The episode demonstrates this powerful link between Mal and his Firefly as he woundedly stumbles to the engine room between flashbacks.  He is injured and the ship is adrift; both are dying.  The ship needs him to survive so that he can fix the engine.  Similarly, he needs the ship to survive before life support runs out.  Mal must rescue the ship, so that he can rescue himself.  And his earlier insistence that “I’m not leaving Serenity” even as he sends the others off on the shuttle craft shows his commitment to his vessel. 

      It is this symbiotic affection that Mal sees as he first glances as this ship.  It is, like him, washed out, beaten down, forgotten, and left for dead.  But it too, like him, would rise again, to fulfill a grander purpose.  And not only does the ship bring new life and meaning to Mal, but Mal brings a new life and purpose to the ship, which may have otherwise remained neglected in its desert grave. 

      Mal is not as interested in the inner workings of the ship, or its gadgets, or its steering, or its capabilities.  Rather, his interest lies in the ship as a whole and her ability to stay airborne.  Case in point: Kaylee informs Mal that the explosions earlier were caused because the “catalyzer on the port compression coil blew.”  This means no more to Mal than it does to you and me, and he asks her to translate that into “Captain Dummy talk.”  Having done so, he further assures her that she doesn’t need to work a miracle, but simply asks her to just “get us ta’ limpin’.”  He wants little more from his little ship than simply to keep flying.  The link is not just between a biological machine and a mechanical machine, but rather between the dreamer and the fulfillment of that dream. 

      Reality immediately intrudes to erode that dream.  In another flashback, Mal shows Zoe his fine purchase and echoes the sentiment of the salesman when Mal says to her, “She’ll  be with you until the day you die.”  Zoe, firmly rooted in reality, bursts his bubble with the reply, “Yeah, because it’s a death trap.”  One person’s pipe dream is another person’s harsh reality.

      But there is something else significant about this ship beyond just the vessel and the captain.  The problem with the ship in “Out Of Gas” is not just that it is broken, but also that its empty of all but Mal, because he has sent the crew off for their own safety.  The emptiness of the ship in the first scenes of the episode is contrasted by the family-like frivolity of the crew around the dinner table, and by their evident concern for one another in crisis.  The freedom that Mal hopes to experience through the ship, is only fully appreciated by having others around who can enjoy that freedom with him.       The scenes preceding the climactic flashback where Mal first sees Serenity put these pieces together.  As with the very first images in the episode, the ship is empty except for Mal.  Then, in the penultimate scene, Mal awakes in the ship’s infirmary again surrounded by his crew and literally connected to Wash, who is giving Mal blood.  This element is significant in light of the antipathy shared between Mal and Wash during the episode.  Serenity is all right, not merely because she is working again, but because her crew are all back home within her.  It is not just the ship that is important to Mal, but those on board, and before he dozes off again, he asks, “Are you all gonna be here when I wake up?”  

    For Mal, Serenity is more than just a ship. It is an opportunity to soar when life tries to ground you. In his first glimpse of Serenity, seen in flashback at the end of this episode, he sees something that many long for: freedom from the hurts and disillusionments of the past, as well as a measure of stability amidst the torrents of a rickety present and an unknown future. On that very first glance, Mal does what he later advises Zoe to do, to “try to see past what she is, and on to what she can be.” And for him, when Serenity is soaring through the black, with a full crew, she is nothing less than pure freedom.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: A Note on Nomenclature

      Some people just make too big a deal out of something that isn’t a big deal.  For instance, I prefer when discussing years and events to use the BCE/ CE (Before Common Era/ Common Era) nomenclature that has become standard in scholarly parlance, rather than the designation B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (anno Domini [Latin for, “In the year of the Lord]).  Perhaps, I used BCE/ CE initially just to look scholarly and snobby.  But now, I use it because of its hidden secret that detractors of the “new” system overlook.   

      A few years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention, characteristically making a mountain out of a molehill, published a June 2000 conciliar document “On Retaining The Traditional Method Of Calendar Dating (B.C./A.D.).”  This statement reigns hellfire down on those who use the BCE/ CE system, and naïvely asserts that, “This practice is the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society.”  The authors of this document “encourage Southern Baptist individuals, churches, entities, and institutions to retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.”

      Every culture has their own calendrical system.  The Jewish calendar begins from their reckoning of the creation of the world, and we are now allegedly in year 5771.  The Japanese sometime reckon the year relative to the reign of their current emperor, and they are thus in year 23 of Emperor Akihito.  Muslims typically use the Hijrah calendar, the first year of which is Muhammad’s voyage, or Hijra, from Mecca to Medina.  I am not offended when I hear or read something about these reckonings, which are institutionalized in certain contexts.  I think that getting “offended” about how someone measures time is just silly. 

      So, why do I use BCE and CE rather than B.C. and A.D.?  First, BCE and CE are in English, rather than Latin or some other dead language.  It is, essentially, “our” language, not just their language.  Also, the BCE/ CE system is increasingly used as standard scholarly phraseology for many cultures and belief systems and thus lends itself to greater clarity when operating on an international or inter-religious platform.

      That alone won’t satisfy most of you, so I’ll continue with the shocking and ironic secret of the BCE/ CE system, but not before we clarify another point:  People who use BCE/CE are not accommodating political correctness or pagan practices. . . at least not any more than anyone else does on a regular basis.  For example, do you celebrate Christmas by putting up a Christmas tree?  This practice has its roots in Germanic, Roman, and maybe even Egyptian pagan mythos!  The ancient Germanic tribes, for instance, believed that their dead ancestors resided in the tops of the trees, so they would cut down one tree and bring it into their house for the winter so that the spirits of great grandma and grandpa could stay warm.  Christian missionaries gradually morphed this practice into a Christian tradition, using a fir tree to symbolize eternal life.  They would top it with an angel, replacing ancestral spirits with celestial ones, or they would put the Star of Bethlehem on top.  Also, you may be disturbed to know that the names we use for many of the days of the week are rooted in the names of Norse and Germanic deities.  So, while its easy to bludgeon someone else with the accusation of accommodation and cultural compromise, we should at least be honest enough to recognize the amount of pagan accommodation infused in our own personal practices. 

      So, here’s the fun little secret of the BCE/CE system: Though it is intended to be religiously/ culturally/ politically neutral, it is still based on the significance of Christ!  The Southern Baptist document sited above states that “The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.” But, I assert that they are wrong in assuming that B.C./ A.D. is the only or even the best way to remind the world of the historical impact of Christ.  In reality, the BCE/ CE system reflects the age-shattering influence of Jesus much better.  When “those in this secular age” utilize BCE/ CE nomenclature, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Japanese or atheist, they are still intentionally or unwittingly acknowledging the global significance of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth.  No other individual’s birth has created a global framework for reckoning time before His birth into one era, and conceding that His birth ushered in a new “common” era of human existence.  The “Common Era” of the present was fundamentally altered for all by His majestic virgin Birth, whether others choose to acknowledge that fact or not. 

    Many significant faiths ground their calendar in the birth, death or deeds of a religious founder. The BCE/ CE system suggests that the birth of Christ was so momentous that it brought about the end of one age, and the beginning of another for everyone worldwide. That is why I think it is funny when those of other faiths use the BCE/ CE nomenclature; they are subtly acknowledging how much more widely significant is the birth of our Founder is then theirs! 

    Indeed, He shatters ages and expectations, just as He has also proven worthy to one day judge the entirety of humanity.  He realigns time and calendars and will one day make time and calendars obsolete by granting eternal life to those who have trusted in Him.  He is not merely Founder, but Teacher, Healer, God-Man, Savior, and Emmanuel.

POLITICS: Demagoguery Against Ideology

    I do not consider myself officially a member of the tea party movement, but I certainly resonate with their broad ideology of lower taxes, less government intrusion and less government spending.  Many others do too!  In fact, somewhere between one third and one half of the country affirms or aligns themselves with this movement.  On the high end, a Rasmussen poll from April 5, 2011 finds that “48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress.” 

    On the low end of the spectrum, it is with unmasked glee that CNN reports, “Unfavorable view of tea party on the rise.”  By this, of course, they mean that 32% of those surveyed still have a favorable view of the movement.  They delightedly report that this is down five points from December 2010, and that those have an unfavorable perspective of the tea party is 47%, which is up four points from December.  Despite their rhetorical shenanigans, CNN’s own polling data still demonstrates that at least one third of the people in our country resonate with the basic tea party ideology.

    Yet, the media attempts to marginalize or demonize this movement, and the Dems accuse the solidly Republican house of kowtowing to that ideology.  Guilty as charged!  House Republicans, at a potential political expense, are sticking to their guns, accomplishing promises that they campaigned on, and governing with an ideology that is solidly embraced by one-third to one half of the country.

    I am encouraged that the legislators on both sides recognized the severity of America's financial crisis by agreeing to so many cuts to the 2011 federal budget.  Yet this process, and surely the more vehement debate that will take place over the 2012 budget, contains two false and destructive premises about ideology.

    The first false assumption is that politics, and specifically, the art of crafting a budget, should be ideologically neutral.  Many politicians accused others of letting their ideology get in the way of the budget process.  Newsflash: There is no such thing as an ideologically-neutral budget!  It is just as much a philosophical decision to continue to pour funding into a program as it is to cut funding to that program.  The harder the fight, the more likely it is that the fight reflects deep-seated beliefs on both sides.  Budget decisions about Social Security, health care, or sending $1.5 annually to countries like Egypt, reflect the core values of legislators.  It is simply impossible to do a business budget, or a home budget, or a government budget in an ideologically neutral fashion. 

    For instance, those who support NPR and Planned Parenthood ideologically should pony up and support them financially.  This would be immeasurably better than continuing to burden the federal government with supporting these organizations which are, for the most part, ideology at odds with many Americans.  People should have the freedom to financially support what they ideologically support, rather than forcing all Americans to do so.  If an institution like NPR or Planned Parenthood cannot find enough willing people who share their ideology to fund it, then that clearly shows that it is unnecessary, and should fold.    

    The second false assumption, and practice, is that ideology and civility are mutually exclusive.  The truth is, one can “stick to their guns” in a debate without compromising civility.  It is distressing that more in Washington have not learned that skill, and many politicians believe that the best offense is to be offensive.  In rhetorical theory, logical fallacies such as slippery slopes, straw man arguments, and red herrings, serve only as a cover for the fact that one does not have any substantive arguments and must find cheap ways to demagogue the opposition’s ideology.  In politics, such rhetorical fallacies directed toward the opposition is now seen as the substance of a great speech.  For instance, it is childish and petulant when liberals demagogue that the Republican budget aims to kill women, marginalize disabled children, and starve the elderly.  It is a mask for the fact that the left doesn't have better ideas about how to lower out-of-control federal spending and lower the debt and deficit.    

    A budget battle cannot be anything but an ideological battle. Nobody makes budget decisions that do not reflect their own personal and philosophical preferences and aspirations. The big battle for now will be the 2012 budget, and this is the time for more and deeper spending cuts. Most Americans, regardless of their ideology, would like to see more discussion of substance, rather than demagoguery. We want budget ideas that are sound, sustainable, and that reflect real numbers, not extrapolated phantasms. So, Washington, can we get past the naïve assumption that people budget and govern without ideology?

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH: Part 4, Literal Resurrection and Literal Second Coming

      Last time in this series on the Essentials of the Faith we examined two foundational and distinctive doctrines of Christianity: Christ’s full deity and his substitutionary death. But Jesus did not stay dead. Nor did He simply rise from the dead metaphorically, symbolically, or metaphysically in the midst of His followers, as some religious naturalists of the 1800's claimed. Jesus Christ actually, literally, and bodily arose from the dead, and on this truth the Christian faith rests. The literal resurrection of Christ and His literal second return are the next two items in this series on the Essentials of the Faith.

      The Literal Resurrection. I believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected bodily and actually as a declaration of the validity and acceptability of his propitiatory sacrifice to God on our behalf (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:12-28; 1 Peter 1:3). His supernatural resurrection affirms the supernatural origin of Christ, and by extension, it proves the legitimacy of all other miraculous and supernatural activity that took place during His life. Indeed, everything that we say and do and think as Christians would be futile without the resurrection. 

    While the Trinity is Christianity’s most fundamental belief, the resurrection is Christianity’s most fundamental proclamation (Acts 2:24, 31-32; 3:15; 4:1; 5:30; 10:40; 17:3, 18, 31-32; 26:23). John Stott said, “Christianity is in its very essence a resurrection religion. The concept of the resurrection lies at its heart. If you remove it, Christianity is destroyed” (from Your Mind Matters, quoted by George Sweeting, Who Said That?, p. 380). Well over three hundred verses in the New Testament are concerned with the subject of Jesus’ resurrection (Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Immortality - The Other Side of Death, p. 245).

      The Literal Second Coming of Christ. I believe that the literal return of Christ to earth is central to the future and imminent aspects of God’s redemptive plan (Matt 24:30-31, 37-44; John 14:3, 18, 28; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-17; 2 Thess 1:7-8; 2:8; Titus 2:13; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 4:13; 5:1; Rev 19:11-16). Christ will return to defeat His enemies, vindicate those who believe in Him, establish a millennial kingdom, fulfill all OT and NT prophesies about Him, and inaugurate an eternal reign. Far from being an isolated futuristic affair, his imminent return has considerable relevance for present activity (see 1 John 3:2-3, for instance). The Nicene Creed of 325 CE asserted that Christ “will come again in glory.”

    Postlude: We have several more “essentials” to cover in this series. However, re-examining those verses in Acts about how the resurrection was so central to the early church’s proclamation was very convicting. It reminded me how far the modern American church has strayed from this simple gospel proclamation, that true eternal life can only be found by faith in Jesus Christ, who resoundingly defeated death and hell by rising from the dead. 

    Modern outreach methods and the church growth movement completely miss the mark when they focus on peripheral issues about relevancy, programming, style of music and gimmicky techniques. These seem completely absent from the book of Acts, and yet the early church grew both in quality and in quantity (Acts 2:42-47). It seems to me to be the perfect time to return to these fundamentals, and to powerfully proclaim the resurrection of Christ as did those first believers. 

EXPLAINING THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD: Part 3, The Septuagint

    The 400 years between the Old Testament and New Testament is replete with fascinating history and significant literary production. In the January 2011 edition we discussed a brief history of the Intertestamental Period, and in February 2011 we surveyed three significant groups of people who emerged during this time period. This month we’ll describe one of the most influential pieces of literature that came from this period: the Septuagint.

    The Septuagint is the name given to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was produced around 250 BCE. The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. In scholarly parlance, it is abbreviated, LXX, which is the number “70” in Roman numerals. According to a document from about 150 BCE called the Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint was created by 70 (though some accounts say 72) Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Ptolemy II, 285-246 BCE). These scholars were commissioned to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek in a further attempt to Hellenize the region. Many legends surround this process, but one of the more persistent ones is that the translators finished the work in just 72 days.

    This Greek translation was needed because many Jews spread throughout the Roman empire were beginning to lose their ability to read the Old Testament documents in Hebrew. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews an accessible glimpse into Judaism. Thus, the Septuagint was extremely important to the fledging New Testament church. Most of the NT writers relied heavily on the LXX and quote from it rather than from Hebrew versions of the OT. The Septuagint was the Bible for early Christians, both Jews and gentiles, who were not fluent in Hebrew. In the first century, Aramaic and Greek were the primary language of conversation, and while Jewish children were taught Hebrew, it was probably not used as much in regular speech.

    There are many differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. For starters, the LXX is longer than the standard Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text). The LXX contains significantly longer versions of both Daniel and Esther, and it includes scribal additions in many other places. This has created several important translational issues, also, the most crucial of which, is the translation of Isaiah 7:14. The Greek word in the LXX is parthenos, which has more of a connotation of “virgin.” The original Hebrew word is almah, which just refers to a “young woman,” and does not demand that this is a virgin in the same way that parthenos seems to. Matthew utilizes this Septuagint language in Matt 1:23 when he uses the word “virgin” to refer to Mary.

    A little less than a year ago, I stumbled over another example of the differences between the OT and the LXX. In Hebrews 10:5, the author quotes from the LXX version of Psalm 40:6: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.” This is an appropriate sentiment to apply to Jesus in light of the incarnation: he literally received and then sacrificed a body that God gave to him. But the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 says: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.” This is an allusion to a stipulation in Mosaic Law which allows a servant, upon being set free, to instead pledge his lifelong fealty to his master (Exodus 21:6; Deut 15:17). This arrangement is finalized by the master piercing the servant's ear. Notice, however, that while it is the servant who offers his permanent service to the master through this rite, it is the master who actually takes the awl and pierces the servant’s ear (presumably, the earlobe). The LXX translators were apparently concerned that their audience would not recognize or understand the metaphor, and instead, broadened it in their translation to include bodily sacrifice in general. (Remember that every translation is to a certain extent an interpretation, including the Septuagint.) Thus the master pierced the servant’s ear in the same way that the LXX implies that the Father prepared a body for the Son to be sacrificed.

    The author of Psalm 40 uses the servant-awl-ear imagery to pledge his lifelong loyalty to his God as evidenced not just by the sacrifices of “meal” and “burnt offerings,” but also by the sacrifice of himself. He is making the case that it is this self-sacrifice of one’s service and love that is more valuable to God than the sacrifice of dead animals. The author of Hebrews, however, applies this idea to Christ. But rather than referring to the piercing of the ear, the author shows how Christ went to the next step of devotion to the Father by sacrificing his body that was given to him at the incarnation.

    So which is the “right” translation; the Hebrew or the Septuagint? At this point, we appeal to the doctrine of inspiration, and affirm our belief that the Bible writings as they were originally written and faithfully preserved are inspired and infallible. When utilized by a NT author, the Septuagint rendering then, too, becomes inspired and infallible. Yes, we are dealing with much bigger and more divisive theological issues here than just Intertestamental documents, but suffice it to say, as soon as a segment of the Septuagint enters the writings of the NT, even if it is different from the same verse in the OT, then it is considered Holy Writ because it has been integrated into the canon under the auspices of the Holy Spirit (2 Sam 23:2; Acts 1:16; 1 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 1:21).

    In the next article in this series on Intertestamental history and literature, we’ll consider the significance of the Apocryphal and the Pseudepigraphical documents, and the influence of these on the New Testament.

Pictured above is a page of the Septuagint from the Codex Vaticanus (B 03, c. 325 CE), currently housed in the Vatican Library.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: Three Ways!  

    Thanks again for reading and for your interaction.  There are three ways that you can participate in this eclectic conversation.

    First, you can send any thoughts or input to feedback@eclectickasper.com. 

    Also, you can give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and leave comments there. 

    Third, you can sound off on one of our weekly “Eclectic Questions” by going to the Discussions tab on the Facebook page.  We would love to hear your thoughts on issues raised in either the March or April edition.  

    Note: Since this was written the “Eclectic Questions” and “discussions tab” functionality has been removed from Facebook pages (drat you, Facebook!).  Anyway, we don't have these questions listed anymore like we used to, but if you want to sound off on any of these issues feel free to simply post your reply on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.