#910 Paul’s Attitude toward the Septuagint
October 20, 2024Dear Dr. Craig,
I hope this message finds you well. I have been reflecting on the issue of the biblical canon, specifically regarding the status of the deuterocanonical books (often referred to as the Apocrypha by Protestants) in light of Paul’s use of the Septuagint.
My question centers on whether Paul himself honestly considered these books to be divinely inspired. If he did, this would provide Christians with good grounds for also considering them inspired Scripture. Here is my argument:
1. All Scripture (i.e., the Bible) is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).
2. Whatever Scripture Paul actively used or referred to is inspired by God, given his apostolic authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit.
3. Paul used and referred to the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was widely recognized among Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.
4. The Septuagint version includes certain books, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and others, which are not part of the Hebrew canon but are found in the Greek Old Testament.
5. Therefore, if Paul considered the entire Septuagint to be “Scripture,” it would logically follow that the books within the Septuagint, including those now called the Apocrypha, are inspired by God.
I understand that Paul did not directly quote from or allude to every book of the Old Testament (such as Haggai), even though all Christians universally consider these books to be divinely inspired. Thus, his lack of direct reference to the deuterocanonical books may not necessarily disqualify them from being considered Scripture. Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 says "all Scripture," not merely "the Scripture I quote in my letters."
Given these points, my question is:
Does the fact that Paul used and referred to the Septuagint imply that he regarded all of its contents—including the deuterocanonical books—as divinely inspired Scripture? If not, how should we understand Paul's concept of "all Scripture" in relation to the Septuagint, and does this have implications for the canonicity and inspiration of the deuterocanonical books for Christians today?
Thank you very much for considering my question. I would greatly appreciate your insights on this topic, especially given the significance of this issue for understanding the biblical canon.
Sincerely,
Sam
United States
Dr. craig’s response
A
Thank you for formulating your argument so clearly, Sam! While you are certainly correct that Paul’s favorite Bible was the Septuagint, that no more implies that he thought it was divinely inspired than my use of the NRSV translation implies that I think that it is divinely inspired. Greek was the common language of the ancient Mediterranean world and so naturally Paul cites Scripture in Greek, just as I cite Scripture in English. Moreover, Paul’s use of the Septuagint no more implies that he thought that the deutero-canonical books in it are inspired and authoritative than my use of the NRSV implies that I think that those same books included in it are inspired and authoritative.
So consider Paul’s statement in II Timothy 3.16 that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Paul’s use of the term “Scripture” always refers to those compositions read and studied in the synagogue from the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebi’im), and the Writings (Ketubim), in whatever collection was extant at that time. So in order to find out what Paul meant by “Scripture,” we have to ask what books Jews of Paul’s day considered to be divinely inspired and authoritative.
Fortunately, Josephus provides us with important evidence on this score:
It therefore naturally, or rather necessarily, follows (seeing that with us it is not open to everybody to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred)—it follows, I say, that we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.
From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.
We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres, rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied documents (Contra Apion 1.37-43).
While Josephus does not list the scriptural books, it is striking that when the Jewish canon was later officially ratified, the number of books was 22, suggesting that in the first century a sort of unofficial, de facto Hebrew canon already existed. Noteworthy in Josephus’ testimony is that the 22 books of the Jewish Scriptures are attributed to divine inspiration delivered via prophets; once the prophetic line failed, histories recorded after that time (e.g., the deutero-canonical books), however accurate, do not possess the authority of the earlier books. The inspired books alone are said to be justly accredited and to be divine decrees or doctrines. Therefore nothing can be added to or subtracted from them. They are reliable and do not contradict one another in any way. One can confidently stake one’s life upon them.
It is also noteworthy that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is fully in accord with the typical Jewish attitude described by Josephus. In the Gospels, Jesus cites almost every book of the Jewish Scriptures referenced by Josephus and never cites any of the apocryphal books, despite their presence in the Septuagint. As you note, neither does Paul cite any of the deutero-canonical books. Paul doubtless followed the example of his Lord in this regard.
What is doubly significant is that citing a particular book does not mean that a writer considered that book to be sacred and inspired Scripture. In my book In Quest of the Historical Adam (Baylor University Press, 2020), I give several fascinating examples of New Testament authors’ citing or alluding to Jewish pseudepigrapha, folklore, and even pagan sources. Citing such works does not imply a commitment to their inspiration and authority.
So in answer to your questions, No, the fact that Paul used and referred to the Septuagint does not imply that he regarded all of its contents—including the deutero-canonical books—as divinely inspired Scripture. How, then, should we understand Paul's concept of “all Scripture” in relation to the Septuagint? He considered the Septuagint to be the most useful translation of the Hebrew Bible and so uses it in his proclamation of the Gospel. Does this have implications for the canonicity and inspiration of the deutero-canonical books for Christians today? None at all; but what it does imply is that we are free use to whatever translation of the Bible is most useful in the language of the culture in which we live and work.
- William Lane Craig