Historical Inaccuracy of the Septuagint
The Septuagint’s historical origins are often traced to a legend known as the Letter of Aristeas, which claims that 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the third century BCE. This letter describes an elaborate process, asserting that each of the scholars produced an identical translation of the Hebrew texts independently, thereby proving divine inspiration. However, modern scholarship widely regards the Letter of Aristeas as a fictional account. Written long after the alleged events, this letter lacks credible historical support, surviving in only an 11th-century manuscript, far removed from the time it purports to describe.
Additionally, scholars such as Albert Sundberg, Karen Jobes, and Moises Silva argue that the idea of a cohesive, divinely inspired Greek Old Testament used by Jewish communities before Christ is a construct of later Christian writers. They suggest that the term “Septuagint” historically referred not to a single, unified text but to a collection of fragmented Greek translations that varied significantly from one another. Rather than a reliable ancient Greek Old Testament, the LXX represents a series of Greek texts that evolved over time, reflecting diverse sources and translator interpretations rather than a single, divinely sanctioned effort.
The Dead Sea Scrolls further complicate the history of the Septuagint. Discovered in the 20th century, these scrolls contain Hebrew texts that align closely with the Masoretic Text rather than with the Greek readings found in the Septuagint. Some proponents of the Septuagint argue that certain Dead Sea Scroll fragments align with the LXX, but these instances are often isolated and sporadic. The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls reaffirm the Masoretic Text as the most consistent textual tradition over millennia, providing little support for the Septuagint’s primacy as a pre-Christian authoritative text.
Textual Deficiency of the Septuagint
The Septuagint’s internal textual inconsistencies further weaken its reliability. Dr. Jack Moorman has documented the variability in the Greek language used across different books of the Septuagint. For instance, while the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) is translated in readable Koine Greek, other books, such as Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs, exhibit awkward phrasing, poor syntax, and at times, unintelligible Greek. These inconsistencies point to the involvement of multiple translators of varying abilities and not a unified, consistent translation.
For example, the Greek rendering of Isaiah in the Septuagint departs drastically from the Hebrew. It often paraphrases or completely rephrases verses, suggesting a freer approach by the translator or perhaps a lack of Hebrew fluency. Proverbs, another example, sometimes rearranges phrases or incorporates Greek idiomatic expressions absent in Hebrew. These liberties taken in translation demonstrate a lack of fidelity to the Hebrew text, raising doubts about the Septuagint’s role as a reliable corrective tool for Hebrew Scriptures.
The book The Septuagint outlines how other books in the LXX include outright errors, and in some cases, doctrinal changes that reflect the translators’ biases rather than the original Hebrew. In Ecclesiastes, the Greek often veers toward Stoic philosophy, inserting language foreign to Jewish theology. Such disparities across books highlight the Septuagint’s diverse translation quality, undermining the claim that it can consistently correct the Hebrew text.
Textual Criticism and Confessional Standards
The use of the Septuagint as a corrective text finds no grounding in the confessional standards upheld by the Reformation. Reformed confessions, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Belgic Confession, emphasize the primacy of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament as the inspired, preserved Word of God. These confessions were formulated on the basis that the original texts alone hold ultimate authority. According to the Westminster Confession, these original texts “were immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.”
By treating the Septuagint as a corrective tool, certain Reformed scholars today stray from these confessional standards, implicitly suggesting that God’s providential preservation did not extend to the Hebrew text. This stance not only contradicts the confessions but also implies that the Hebrew text as preserved by the Masoretes was deficient. Such a claim introduces a theological inconsistency, as it challenges the Reformers’ doctrine of preservation, which affirms that God has kept His Word intact in the original languages.
This reliance on the Septuagint to correct the Masoretic Text also ignores historical evidence of preservation within the Jewish tradition. The Masoretes, Jewish scribes from the 7th to 10th centuries, implemented meticulous practices to safeguard the accuracy of the Hebrew text, including systems for counting letters and words to prevent scribal errors. Their dedication reflects a recognition of divine responsibility in preserving Scripture, a stance that aligns with Reformed theology on providential preservation but conflicts with the agenda-driven approach of some modern textual critics.
Logical Consistency and the Roman Catholic Parallel
If it was wrong for Dr. Ruckman to elevate the KJV above the original texts, it is equally inconsistent for Reformed scholars to assign a corrective role to the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church historically placed the Latin Vulgate in a position of superiority, even claiming its divine authority over the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This view became a point of contention during the Reformation, as Protestant reformers challenged the notion that any translation could hold more authority than the original Scriptures.
The Reformers argued that Scripture, in its original Hebrew and Greek, was divinely inspired and preserved. Translations, while useful, were to be subordinate to the original texts. By allowing the Septuagint to act as a corrective, certain Reformed scholars risk mirroring the Roman Catholic elevation of the Vulgate and unintentionally endorsing the very perspective that the Reformers rejected.
This inconsistency not only diverges from Reformed principles but also undermines the doctrine of sola scriptura, which asserts that Scripture alone—preserved in its original languages—is the final authority. Allowing the LXX to supersede the Hebrew text implies that the Hebrew Old Testament, as preserved by God’s providence, was flawed, thereby diminishing the Reformed belief in the sufficiency of the original texts.
Evidence of Preservation in the Masoretic Text
The evidence supporting the Masoretic Text’s preservation is extensive. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered between 1947 and 1956, contain fragments of nearly all the Old Testament books and provide manuscripts dating as far back as the 3rd century BCE. These manuscripts align closely with the Masoretic Text, demonstrating a high degree of consistency across centuries. For instance, the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran matches the Masoretic Text in 95% of its content, confirming the Masoretic Text’s integrity over millennia.
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that variations between the Masoretic Text and other ancient texts, including the Septuagint, are often minor and do not affect doctrinal integrity. Scholars like J.P. Green and Randall Price argue that these minor discrepancies reinforce the Masoretic Text’s stability, as they indicate scribal accuracy over generations rather than corruption. The Masoretic Text’s consistency also aligns with the Jewish scribal tradition, which placed an unparalleled emphasis on precise copying practices, supported by methods such as letter counting and word checking.
The Masoretic Text’s reliability, therefore, directly counters claims that the Septuagint should be used to “correct” it. These claims not only disregard the historical evidence of the Hebrew text’s preservation but also challenge the Reformed doctrine of providential preservation, which asserts that God has faithfully preserved His Word through the original languages.
Claims of Jesus and the Apostles Citing the Septuagint
Advocates of the Septuagint often claim that Jesus and the apostles cited it, using this assertion to bolster its authority. However, textual analysis shows that the New Testament authors used phrases indicative of Hebrew citations rather than relying on the Greek. Jesus, for instance, references “the law and the prophets,” a phrase tied closely to the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Septuagint. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus speaks of the preservation of every “jot and tittle,” terms specific to the Hebrew script and indicative of its divine authority.
Moreover, Dr. D.A. Waite and others argue that New Testament citations do not necessarily reflect a reliance on the LXX. Instead, they may reflect the authors’ theological adaptation of Old Testament passages for a Greek-speaking audience while staying faithful to Hebrew meanings. This nuance undercuts the claim that the Septuagint itself held scriptural authority, reinforcing instead that the Hebrew Masoretic Text served as the doctrinal foundation.
The apostles’ use of Old Testament quotations does not affirm the Septuagint’s authority as a corrective text over Hebrew. Rather, it points to the theological continuity between the Testaments without implying that Jesus or the apostles endorsed the Septuagint as authoritative over the Hebrew Scriptures.
Conclusion
In summary, the Reformed community must recognize the inherent issues in using the Septuagint as a corrective over the Masoretic Text. This stance mirrors Dr. Ruckman’s “double inspiration” doctrine, a controversial and largely rejected view within Protestantism, and aligns with the Roman Catholic elevation of the Vulgate, which the Reformers opposed. Historical evidence confirms the Septuagint’s complex, unreliable origins, while the Masoretic Text’s preservation remains demonstrable and consistent. Upholding the Hebrew text’s primacy aligns with Reformed confessional standards, respects the integrity of God’s providential preservation, and remains faithful to the doctrines established by the Reformers.
