The LXX: Implications for Translation and Theology I: Preface

Among the blogs I read on a regular basis is the former Etic of Lingamish (a rather entertaining reference to the Old Babylonian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh), which has now become simply Lingamish. Lingamish, as his blog-name implies, is a linguist; he is currently helping to translate the Bible in the Nyungwe language, a member of the Bantu family of languages. For those of you who know Stan Granberg, the language of the Meru people, with whom Stan and Gena worked, is also a Bantu language.

On his blog, Lingamish talks about all kinds of things, but often returns to the topic of translation. Recently, he expressed a desire to hear a little more about the implications of the use of the Septuagint by the authors of the New Testament, especially in the context of prophesy fulfillment, for Translation. Over the next few days, I intend to post on this topic, and to go a step or two farther and sketch some of the possible implications of basic developments in Septuagint (and perhaps cognate studies) for theology.

If this sounds like fun to you, we need to hang out and nerd it up; if this sounds like gibberish or like a lot of work, hang out on my other blog, and I'll try to pull my attention from the situation in Lebanon for a few lighter posts . . . starting Wednesday . . . if all is well.

A Feeling God: A Just God

On The Blog I Never Use, Brian Rusher is Mad Crazy at Signifcation. said...

Ty,
One of the most moving things I've ever read, and one of the most helpful things, is your post on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The personification of God in that post was moving because it depicted a God with deep emotion for the hurting, not just a deity who is so pure that he "must" vomit impurities from his mouth (that passage is a favorite of preachers in Oklahoma).

Thank you, Rush. I can't conceive of a completely immutable (unaffected and unchanging) God [though Dr. Highfield, from Pepperdine explained it in a way that makes it a legitimate belief, I just don't happen to agree with his Neo-Platonic foundations]. Part of the reason that I can't buy in is that if God were to escape the price for creating the world, he would be evil, having brought humanity into existence to suffer from the laws of nature that he created, while avoiding the consequences for those laws with impunity. Some might say that, since God never broke those laws, he should not be subject to their consequences, but that is also true of the thousands of children who suffer starvation and abuse, yet are granted no such freedom from the consequences of a broken world.

If someone wants to argue that these children are judged for the sin of Adam, I must respond that would further implicate God in the unfairness since, "One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both alike: an abomination to the Lord (Prov 17.15)." The Lord would then be condemning the innocent to bear the punishment of the wicked, yet he himself would escape all consequence; if God cannot make the destructions wrought by natural law (natural desasters, cancer et al) fair (for some reason that it may not be possible for the human mind to fully grasp), then God, by choosing to subject himself to the consequence, mitigates the unfairness of natural law. Otherwise, God is unjust, and that is unthinkable.

If someone says that Jesus is all the payment God needed for this injustice, then God was unjust from the death of the first innocent child until Christ; I cannot accept God as being unjust for a moment, so I cannot adhere to that belief either.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I missed some great logical problem or some fact that would make my argument fall flat, but until I find a better argument, I'll believe that God feels because I cannot imagine a just God who does not.