Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
Adam says the early church “could not read Hebrew,” so the Septuagint wasn’t a chosen preference but the only access they had; what does that imply about early Christian assumptions regarding language, authority, and “the Bible,” and how should that reshape modern claims that “the early church used the LXX, therefore we must”?
Another way to ask: Adam says the early church couldn’t read Hebrew, so they used the Septuagint because it was all they had. What does that say about what they thought made a text authoritative, and how should that affect the claim, “They used the LXX, so we must too”?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Adam’s point implies early Christians treated a translation as a legitimate “Bible” because it was their real access to God’s Word, not because they made a principled argument that Greek should replace Hebrew. Therefore, “the early church used the LXX” is evidence of God’s provision through translation, not proof that the LXX should now supplant the Hebrew.
- He affirms: “The Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early church.”
- But he reframes the reason: “the early church could not read Hebrew… It’s not like they had a choice… The Septuagint was the only way for them to access the Old Testament.”
- He allows an exception: “maybe with the exception of Origen,” who “learned some Hebrew.”
- His conclusion: the LXX was “wonderful” and “blessed them,” but “we should not conclude… the Septuagint should supplant the Hebrew.”
- He strengthens it with the KJV analogy: God used it widely, yet we still go back to Greek as primary for translation.