A Critique of the Septuagint as Corrective to the Hebrew Text
Introduction
The association of Dr. Peter Ruckman with “double inspiration” serves as a potent comparison for examining the trend in certain Reformed circles that elevates the Septuagint (LXX) to an authoritative position over the Masoretic Hebrew text. Just as Ruckman advocated that the KJV could correct the Greek and Hebrew texts, some Reformed scholars today treat the LXX as a corrective tool over the Hebrew scriptures, a view that starkly contrasts with traditional Reformed doctrine on textual preservation and scriptural authority. This article contends that such a stance mirrors Ruckman’s doctrine, aligning these scholars closer to the Roman Catholic view of the Vulgate’s authority than to the principles of the Reformation.
Ruckman’s Doctrine and the King James Version
Dr. Ruckman’s teaching asserted that the KJV held divine authority to correct even the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. While controversial, his stance positioned an English translation above the original languages, suggesting that the English translation itself was uniquely inspired. Ruckman’s argument is not only problematic within KJV-only circles but contradicts the Protestant Reformation’s commitment to the authority of the original texts.
The Septuagint and Modern Reformed Textual Criticism
Similar patterns appear among some Reformed scholars who uphold the Septuagint as a corrective for the Masoretic Text, particularly in places where perceived errors or ambiguities appear. By allowing the Septuagint to override the Hebrew, these scholars afford a translation authority over the original text, diverging from both confessional standards and traditional Reformed principles of scriptural preservation. This elevation of the LXX finds no solid footing in historical evidence, as the Septuagint’s origin and authenticity have been the subject of substantial debate.
Historical Inaccuracy of the Septuagint
The book The Septuagint by H.D. Williams details how the Septuagint’s origins are enshrouded in myth, particularly the story of the Letter of Aristeas, which is considered fictional by many historians. Allegedly written in the third century BCE, the Letter claims that seventy-two Jewish elders produced the LXX in seventy-two days. However, the text of this letter exists only in an 11th-century manuscript, and no evidence corroborates the existence of a complete Greek Old Testament prior to Christianity. Scholars such as Albert Sundberg, Karen Jobes, and Moises Silva caution that the Septuagint as a unified, reliable Greek translation of the Old Testament is a post-fact construct; the LXX as a “homogeneous unit” is misleading. This revelation undermines any claim that the LXX could correct the Masoretic Text, given the lack of a historically reliable text.
Textual Deficiency of the Septuagint
Further critique arises from the Septuagint’s variable quality. Tthe Greek found in the LXX spans from fairly readable Koine in the Pentateuch to inconsistent and nearly unintelligible Greek in other books. This inconsistency suggests that the LXX was a patchwork of translations by multiple hands, with varying degrees of fidelity to the original text. Moorman categorizes sections like Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs as particularly flawed, often departing widely from the Hebrew, sometimes taking liberties as free paraphrases rather than translations. To treat such an unreliable text as a corrective over the Hebrew is not only a theological departure but a questionable choice based on the Septuagint’s inherent textual flaws.
Textual Criticism and Confessional Standards
This focus on the LXX as a corrective text reveals an agenda among certain textual critics. The Septuagint argues that this agenda aims to displace the Masoretic Text’s authority, undermining the foundation of the Received Text, which has been preserved through the centuries by the Jewish community, in line with the promises of preservation found in Scripture. For the Reformers, confessional standards emphasized the primacy of the Hebrew and Greek texts over any translation. Thus, using the LXX to reconstruct the Hebrew contradicts the standards of the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, and other Reformed doctrinal statements, which affirm the Masoretic and Greek Textus Receptus as authoritative.
Logical Consistency and the Roman Catholic Parallel
If it was erroneous for Ruckman to elevate the KJV above the Greek and Hebrew, it is equally inconsistent for Reformed scholars to elevate the LXX over the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Septuagint draws a pointed comparison between the modern Reformed approach to the LXX and the Roman Catholic elevation of the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church upheld the Vulgate as divinely authoritative, even over the Greek and Hebrew texts, granting it corrective authority. To afford the LXX a similar status mirrors this Catholic doctrine, posing an incongruity for those who claim Reformation principles. The Protestant Reformation rejected any translation’s supremacy over the original languages, maintaining that God’s providential preservation applied to the Hebrew and Greek alone.
Evidence of Preservation in the Masoretic Text
Contrary to the claims of LXX advocates, substantial evidence supports the preservation of the Hebrew text. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, provide manuscripts of the Old Testament that closely align with the Masoretic Text, attesting to its stability over two thousand years. Manuscripts like the Qumran copy of Isaiah match the Masoretic text almost exactly, demonstrating the Masoretic Text’s reliability and the Jewish scribes’ fidelity to preserving it. Scholars such as J.P. Green, Randall Price, and T. Holland have highlighted that the Masoretic Text remained consistent over centuries, refuting the notion that the Septuagint is closer to an “original” Hebrew text.
Claims of Jesus and the Apostles Citing the Septuagint
Modern advocates for the Septuagint often claim that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it, using this as a basis for its authority. However, The Septuagint rebuts this by noting that references to the Old Testament in the New Testament do not necessitate the use of the LXX. Scholars such as Dr. D.A. Waite argue that Jesus validated the Masoretic Text, as evidenced by His reference to “the law and the prophets” and His statement in Matthew 5:18 about the “jot and tittle,” a direct endorsement of the Hebrew script. New Testament allusions to Old Testament passages do not confirm a reliance on the LXX; rather, they reflect the theological consistency between the Testaments.
Conclusion
In sum, Reformed scholars who promote the Septuagint as a corrective over the Hebrew Text mirror Ruckman’s KJV-elevating doctrine, a stance that more closely aligns with the Roman Catholic position regarding the Latin Vulgate than with Reformed standards. Historical evidence of the Septuagint’s questionable origins, textual inconsistencies, and the traditional affirmation of the Masoretic Text by the Reformers and confessional standards make this approach problematic. To uphold Reformation principles and the doctrine of providential preservation, the Reformed community must reject the Septuagint’s corrective role and reaffirm the authority of the original Hebrew text.
