This is the second installation in the discussion around the Reformed view and use of the Greek Old Testament (GOT). In part one, I asserted that we cannot define one single Reformed view, but it is more of a spectrum, ranging from avoidance because of its corruption to willing use. This is in contrast to the Reformation Bible Society,[2] who has presented the Reformed view as homogenous,[3] stating that the GOT was only used for translation and vocabulary help, and we must follow suit. In this second part I want to present two different uses of the GOT in the Reformed literature. First, we will observe that the Reformed have seen the GOT as attesting to the veracity of the Hebrew and preserving the OT throughout the ages. Second, we will look at how quotations of the GOT in the NT have been dealt with by commentators, with an example from Hebrews 8:9.
The Preservation and Veracity of the Hebrew
Throughout the Reformed tradition several authors have pointed out that God has used the GOT in order to give a witness to the trustworthiness of the Hebrew OT. The great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564), mentions the GOT only one time in his Institutes. In book one, chapter 8, he addresses the credibility of the Scriptures and takes up the question of the books of Maccabees. These books, he says, are “fitted the best to confirm” the credibility of the Scriptures. He states that at the point of the exile, “The Hebrew language was in no estimation, and almost unknown; and assuredly, had not God provided for religion, it must have utterly perished. . . [the Jews] had lost the genuine use of their native tongue.”[4] According to Calvin, it is by the GOT that the Scriptures were spread out through the whole world, as a means for God to preserve His word.[5]
Francis Turretin (1623-1687), who was introduced in part one, likewise says that the GOT was used to preserve the Hebrew text of the Bible. He states, “What they [Roman Catholic Scholars] adduce to prove the authenticity of the Greek text. . . are still stronger proofs of the integrity of the Hebrew Codex—to which (other things being equal) the prerogative is not usually denied.”[6] Turretin is here responding to those who prefer the GOT over the Hebrew (which the Reformed always deny) yet confirms that the GOT indeed does provide a strong proof to the reliability of the Hebrew original.
Later in the tradition, Robert Haldane (1764-1842), Robert Shaw (1795-1863), and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) argue that the GOT offers a reinforcing witness to the canonical books of the OT. Haldane wrote a wonderful book on The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. In it he states that there is nothing more settled than the books of the Hebrew OT, and “We have the fullest evidence that it was fixed 280 years before the Christian era, when, as has been noticed, the Greek translation called the Septuagint, was executed at Alexandria, the books of which were the same as in our Bible. And as no authentic records of a more ancient date are extant, it is impossible to ascend higher in search of testimony.”[7] Shaw, who wrote a commentary on the Westminster confession of faith, commenting on chapter one paragraph eight writes, “The purity of the Old Testament Scriptures is confirmed by the general coincidence of the present Hebrew copies with all the early translations, and particularly with the Septuagint version.”[8] Finally, Herman Bavinck states simply that, “The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves witness to the authority of the canonical books.”[9]
What can be learned from this string of quotes? First, these men clearly believe that the Hebrew text of the Bible has been preserved, and that the GOT is able to bear witness to the integrity and authority of those books. Second, the GOT was used by God at a time when the Hebrew language had fallen out of use, and thus the OT was preserved through this ancient translation.
The Quotations of the Septuagint in the New Testament
The place that Christians are most aware of the GOT is where it is quoted in the NT, especially when the quotation varies from the Hebrew. In this portion I want to deal first with the nature of OT quotations, according to the Reformed writers. Finally, I would like to look at Hebrews 8:9 as an example of the range of responses to the deviations from the Hebrew by Reformed commentators.
The Nature of Old Testament Quotes
William Ross is right when he says that “the New Testament authors’ use of the GOT—even citing it as ‘Scripture’—warrants serious reflection. The GOT was (with caveats) a “pew Bible” of the apostolic church.”[10] Reformed theologians and commentators have recognized this. However, our tradition has been careful to say that the Greek translation can be quoted authoritatively and yet be subordinate to the Hebrew. Again, Turretin says that “The quotations in the New Testament from the Septuagint are not authentic per se. . . but per accidens inasmuch as they were drawn into the sacred context by the evangelists under the influence of the Holy Spirit.” These quotations of the GOT are therefore authentic and authoritative only because the Holy Spirit has “consecrated them” in Holy Scripture. This does not imply that the entire GOT as a translation is meant to be our final authority.[11]
Nevertheless, Bavinck recognizes that the NT authors frequently quote the GOT. In his Reformed Dogmatics he writes, “Notwithstanding all this, the OT is consistently quoted in the NT in the Greek translation of the LXX. The writers of the NT, writing in Greek and for Greek readers, commonly used the translation that was known and accessible to them.”[12] Bavinck goes on to offer three categories of quotations—those that deviate from the GOT to the Hebrew; those that agree with the GOT and depart from the Hebrew; and those that do not seem to match either.[13]
Reactions to Departures from the Hebrew Text
In this section of the essay, I want to focus on three different reactions from Reformed commentators to the places in the NT quotes which deviate to the GOT and away from the Hebrew. I have chosen Hebrew 8:9, because it evokes three different explanations from John Calvin (1509-1564), John Owen (1616-1683), and John Brown of Edinburgh (1784-1858). I will take these authors from newest to oldest.
The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 [38:31-34 GOT] in Heb. 8:8-12. It is the longest OT quotation in the NT. The quotation is almost exactly what is found in the GOT, with few exceptions.[14] The major deviation is found at verse 9, which reads, “for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them (ἠμέλησα [גּעַלְתִי]), declares the LORD” (Heb. 8:9 ESV). The Hebrew text of Jeremiah however reads, “my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband (בָּעַלְתִּי), declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:32 ESV). The difference can be attributed to one Hebrew letter (beth/gimmel; ג/ב). How should we view this difference? Let us hear the answer of each commentator.
John Brown resolves this problem in two ways. First, he does not believe that the Apostle is quoting from either Hebrew or Greek, but from memory, being prevented from any mistake or misrepresentation of the original meaning.[15] Second, he contends that the issue is not actually with the Greek quotation, but simply with the English translation. He thinks that the English versions use a common translation in Jeremiah, but we should learn from the Apostle that Jeremiah uses a “less common meaning.”[16] Therefore, John Brown does not think that there is any difference, but the Hebrew can be translated as the Apostle quotes it.[17]
John Owen, in his masterful seven volume Exposition of Hebrews, gives a large amount of attention to issues concerning the GOT. Owen denies that this is a quotation out of the GOT at all. He states that commentators make the problem more complicated for themselves than is necessary. According to him, the writer is quoting from his own translation. He says that “Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX. . . He expressed the mind of the Scripture as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own.”[18] Any agreement, he says, with the GOT is simply a coincidence.[19] To Owen then, there is no real problem, he is far more concerned about the sense of the words and says that the translation should not be the focus.[20]
Finally, John Calvin recognizes the issue in his commentary on Hebrews and offers the solution in appendix E2. Calvin presents two possibilities—a typographical error in the Hebrew or an error in the Greek.[21] He sees the best solution to be a typographical error in the Hebrew, which ought to be solved by printing געלתי instead of the current בעלתי.[22] Calvin states that this is best represented by the versional witnesses of the OT and more consistent with the internal verbiage of Jeremiah. This is remarkably significant. Instead of attempting to harmonize (Brown), or deny (Owen) the issue, Calvin suggests a correction to the Hebrew text itself, on the basis of the New Testament quotation of the GOT.[23] He is not dogmatic about which solution is best, only laying out probabilities. He ends his discussion by saying, “but either of these suppositions would reconcile the passage; and it is singular that in both cases the change required is only one letter.”[24]
Conclusion
Bringing the discussion to a close, let us answer the question initially proposed: “how did the Reformed tradition use the GOT?” First, they used the GOT (and other ancient translations) as a way to reinforce the text of the Hebrew Bible. Second, the GOT is often quoted by the NT writers, and where it is quoted it is authoritative, but not on its own. Third, there was a range of ways that commentators have solved the differences in NT quotations with the OT. Brown attempted to harmonize the meaning, Owen denied the problem, and Calvin suggests an emendation to the Hebrew text. Let us remember then, that the GOT cannot be ignored but is useful to us in Bible translation, interpretation, and matters of text-criticism.
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
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 1: Prolegoma. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Brown, John. Hebrews. A Geneva Series Commentary. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. Edited by Henry Beveridge. Translated by James Anderson, Charles William Bingham, John King, Thomas Myers, John Owen, John Pringle, and William Pringle. 500th anniversary ed. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
______. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
______. Calvin’s Commentaries. Translated by Rev. John Owen. Vol. 22. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
Haldane, Robert. The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Eugene: WIPF & Stock, 2007.
Lane, William. Hebrews 1-8. Vol. 47a of WBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Owen, John. An Exposition of The Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991.
Ross, William A., and Gregory R. Lanier. The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2021.
Shaw, Robert. The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. West Linn: Monergism, 2023.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992.
[1] Jared Ebert is a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary working on his thesis in New Testament under Dr. Timothy Decker. He is a Husband and Father, the Senior Pastor at Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and a Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations.
[2] The views and lectures of the Reformation Bible Society can be found on their website here: https://www.reformationbiblesociety.org/2024-media/ [accessed Nov. 5, 2024]. Of particular interest to this article the plenary lectures will demonstrate the view of the whole symposium.
[3] In a recent two-and-a half-hour rejoinder, Dr. Jeff Riddle expanded from calling it the “Reformed view” to the “Protestant view” of the GOT. His claims can be heard here: https://youtu.be/yN7ugh3wO24?si=7XJgJK19am0LIwOV [accessed on Nov. 5, 2024]
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 1.8.10, pg. 41.
[5] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 41.
[6] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992), 130.
[7] Robert Haldane, The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Eugene: WIPF & Stock, 2007), 34.
[8] Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (West Linn: Monergism, 2023), 59.
[9] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1: Prolegoma, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 394.
[10] William A. Ross and Gregory R. Lanier, The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 162.
[11] Remember that in our confession it explicitly states that it is, “The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” The final authority in all matters of religion therefore is the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.
[12] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1, 395.
[13] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1, 396. Bavinck’s full quote and cited examples are given here:
- “Deviation from the LXX and agreement with the Hebrew text (Matt. 2:15, 18; 8:17; 12:18-21; 27:46; John 19:37; Rom. 10:15, 16; 11:9; 1 Cor. 3:19; 15:54)
- Conversely, in other texts there is agreement with the LXX and deviation from the Hebrew (Matt. 15:8, 9; Acts 7:14; 15:16, 17; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 10:5; 11:21; 12:6)
- In the third group of citations there is more or less significant deviation both from the LXX and Hebrew text (Matt. 2:6; 3:3; 26:31; John 12:15; 13:18; Rom. 10:6-9; 1 Cor. 2:9”
[14] “The prophetic word of censure and promise found in Jer 31 (LXX 38):31-34 is quoted in full in substantial agreement with the LXX text.” William Lane, Hebrews 1-8, vol. 47a of WBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 209.
[15] John Brown, Hebrews, A Geneva Series Commentary (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 371.
[16] Brown’s full quotation is as follows: “The true account of this variation seems to be this, that our translators have given to the word in Jeremiah its most ordinary signification; whereas it would appear, from the Apostle sanctioning the version of the LXX in this instance, that I ought to have been understood in a less common meaning.” Brown, Hebrews, 371.
[17] In order to substantiate his claims, Brown cites Gesenius’ lexicon, and says, “The LXX have here given a correct version, and the Apostle has adopted it.” Brown, Hebrews, 371n2.
[18] John Owen, An Exposition of The Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 130.
[19] Owen, The Works of John Owen, 130.
[20] The full quote reads, “The apostle neither in this nor in any other place doth bind up himself precisely unto the translation of the words, but infallibly gives us the sense and meaning; and so he hath done in this place.” Owen, The Works of John Owen, 130.
[21] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 22:386.
[22] The whole paragraph says, “Still the most probable and the easiest solution is to suppose a typographical mistake in Jer. xxxi. 32, the word בעלתי being used instead of בחלתי, there being only one letter different. The reasons for this supposition are these—all the versions are different here from what they are in Jer. iii. 4, where the same phrase is supposed to occur—and this latter verb is found in Zech. xi. 8, followed by ב as here, and means ‘to abhor,’ or according to some, ‘to reject.’ There is also another word, געלתי, which has been mentioned, and has but one letter different; and as it is used by Jeremiah himself in chap. xiv. 19, and with ב, in the sense of abhorring or loathing, it may justly be deemed as the most probable word.” Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386.
[23] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386. What is interesting is that Calvin does not actually adjust his text when he prints his commentary on Jeremiah. His translation remains, “et ego dominabor illis, dicit Jehova. . . although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.” Jean Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. Henry Beveridge, trans. James Anderson et al., 500th anniversary ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 10:124.
[24] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
