Recently, a group of pastors and scholars gathered together at an academic symposium on the Septuagint for the inaugural meeting of the Reformation Bible Society. This Society is made up primarily of those who locate the perfectly preserved text of the New Testament in the various editions of the Textus Receptus. This is the first attempt to apply their ideas about the NT text to the OT. There are several critiques that might be offered, but this blog does not offer adequate space for them all.
One point is significant to learn from this symposium. According to the RBS lectures, the only reasonable and allowable use of the Septuagint is to help us understand particular vocabulary and assist with Bible translation of the Old Testament. Christian McShaffrey, for instance, uses Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14. His point is to show us that the Apostles are here giving a clear and authoritative interpretation of the unclear Hebrew עַלְמָ֗ה (young woman/virgin). The Septuagint translates this with παρθένος (virgin), which Matthew quotes, and therefore gives Apostolic “seal” to that meaning of the Hebrew. This is helpful in translation of the OT, and interpretation of Isaiah itself. But is this the only way which we can conservatively use the Septuagint? Is it the only way that the Reformed writers have used it?
In this two-part blog article, I would like to propose an answer to those exact questions. It is clear from the overall evidence that there is no such thing as the Reformed view on the Septuagint. There are differing opinions, ranging from total rejection to sympathetic willingness to use it for a variety of goals. I want to present my case in four phases. First, by defining what I mean by “Septuagint;” second, in examining the authority and reliability recognized by Reformed writers; third, by looking at two uses for the Septuagint found throughout the Reformed literature (canonical reinforcement, and textual preservation); finally, I want to address how quotations of the Septuagint in the NT have been handled by Reformed commentators, using Hebrews 8:9 as an example.
Defining the Term “Septuagint”
The term “Septuagint” is not an easy one to define. It is slightly misleading, as it seems to refer to a homogenous text, bound in a single volume. In fact, as Moises Silva and Karen Jobes have stated, “there is really no such thing as the Septuagint.” What Silva and Jobes mean, is that in the ancient world, there is no one volume or translation which can be properly called “the Septuagint.” This is why scholars like Greg Lanier and William Ross prefer the term, “the Greek Old Testament.” This term will be used throughout the rest of this article, abbreviated as GOT.
With this qualification in mind, when we speak about the GOT, we are talking about an early, very ancient translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Ellis Brotzman has estimated that it “was initially translated in the third to second centuries B.C. It thus represents the earliest of the translations of the Old Testament.” Thus, the term Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament, is used to refer to a set of Greek translations which were completed before the time of the Apostles.
The Corruption and Authority of the Greek Old Testament
The Reformed view of the GOT is not homogenous. However, a reading of the material will demonstrate that most (if not all) agree on one point—that the GOT was corrupted early on. This view is evident in the work of William Whitaker (1548-1595), a profoundly important Puritan. In his volume A Disputation on Holy Scripture (1588), he states that the authority of the GOT is uncertain because, it seems that the text has been “wholly lost.” He goes on to say that, “[either] this Greek version which hath come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority.”
Another renowned Puritan, John Owen (1616-1683), was very skeptical of the GOT. He wrote in several places about the uselessness of the version and its doubtful state. He says, “That this translation. . . which is corrupted and gone off from the original in a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who know aught of these things.” In another place he writes, “All the things which are commonly said about this version are so uncertain, and there have been so many and so great clashes of opinion about it, that a single human life span would hardly suffice for an accurate examination of them all—and yet many foolish men still rush into dispute over this version.”
Despite this corruption, the Reformed have recognized that the GOT is not to be thrown out, but serves as a subordinate standard, under the Hebrew original. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) excellently explains this in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology. He states that we concede this version to have great authority, though it is, “human, not divine, since what was done by the translators was by human effort only, not by prophets and men who were God-breathed by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” In this same place he gives us six reasons why this version should be considered, “of great weight and rightly to be preferred to other translations.” First, it is the oldest translation; second, it was read publicly and privately by Jews; third, the apostles and evangelists “consecrated it,” by citing it; fourth, the apostles gave it to the church; fifth, the Greek and Latin churches held it as the authorized version for six hundred years; finally, the fathers and ancient church writers used it for commentaries and creeds. However, says Turretin, “the question is whether it has such an authority as that it ought to be regarded as authentic and equal to the sources. Our adversaries maintain this; we deny it.” So then, while the Reformed have been honest in recognizing that the GOT has not been perfectly preserved but has been corrupted thoroughly, yet it is useful as an authority and witness to the Hebrew text.
The Westminster Divines likewise did not recognize the GOT as divinely inspired nor perfectly preserved. Afterall, they wrote the confession that says the OT original was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek. Nevertheless, they saw the benefits of using the GOT. Indeed, they commissioned the printing of an edition of the GOT. In session 962, held on November 30, 1647, while the committee was debating proof texts for chapter 1 of the confession, they voted to enlist a “Mr. Young” to the duty of printing the GOT and wish, “that he may have encouragement to proceed in so good a work.” The significance of this is not small, but it means that they believed, as an assembly, that the GOT was a worthy investment, helpful for their biblical work and exegesis.
Conclusion to Part One
As far as the Reformed view of the GOT two lessons are learned in this first part. First, there is wide agreement that the GOT has been radically corrupted. This in fact is one of the details that sets apart the version from the Hebrew original, since the Hebrew has been “kept pure in all ages” (1689, 1:8). Second, according to Turretin, the GOT is an old and helpful version of the Old Testament. It should be noted at this point that there is little to no disagreement with the Reformation Bible Society on this first part. However, they are more adamant about a single “classical-Protestant view,” while I am suggesting that a spectrum of views existed. Part two of this series will address the ways in which the GOT has been used by Reformed writers, which will get down to the core of the disagreements with the Reformation Bible Society.
About the Author
Jared Ebert is married to Mykala, and is the father of Micah and Trinity. He received a BA in Pastoral Studies and Bible from Baptist Bible College, and a MDiv with an emphasis in Biblical Languages from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is now studying as a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, researching in New Testament supervised by Dr. Timothy Decker. He currently serves as the Senior Pastor at Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and as the Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations. He is the author of Reading for Joy: A Handbook for Bible Reading.
Bibliography
Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1994.
Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Second edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2015.
Mahlen, Brett, and Christian McShaffrey. “Doxology or Devil? A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord’s Prayer.” PRJ 13.2 (2021): 21–31.
Owen, John. Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth; in Six Books. Translated by William H. Goold and Stephen P. Westcott. Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria Publ, 2009.
———. The Works of John Owen. 16. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.
Riddle, Jeffrey, and Christian McShaffrey, eds. Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers. Winter Springs: The Greater Heritage Christian Publishing, 2022.
Ross, William A., and Gregory R. Lanier. The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2021.
Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Third edition, Completely revised and Expanded. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B., and David Frederick Wright, eds. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Whitaker, William. A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Translated by William Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
