I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.
Note: Robert L. Vaughn is pastor of Old Prospect Baptist Church near Mt. Enterprise, Texas.
The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025. [i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.) [ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.
In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and get an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. In her summary, Myrto Theocharous mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.
The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5). [iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.
Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with his conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.
In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.” [iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!
The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.” [v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology! [vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169). [vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction. [viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!
Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6). [ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey. [x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session). [xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?
On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8. [xii] Who’s tilting at whom?
Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.
While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193). [xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2). [xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic. [xv]
Straight talk, no excursus.
The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology. [xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology. They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.” [xvii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”
In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii). [xviii] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.
Endnotes
[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin.
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xviii] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”
No comments:
Post a Comment