Modern Bible versions are no longer being translated only from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is plainly admitted, for example, in the preface to the ESV. Thankfully, this new approach does not result in major changes to the text of scripture, but it does represent a major departure from Reformed bibliology…[and from] the confession’s assertion that it is the Old Testament in Hebrew which remains authentical.

In an effort to maintain the peace, purity, and unity of the church, Reformed and Presbyterian denominations have historically required ministers to “subscribe” to doctrinal standards. In my denomination, that standard is the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

As Bible believers, we acknowledge that our official summaries of doctrine are not infallible and that Christ alone is Lord of the conscience. That is why ministerial candidates are typically able to declare an “exception” or a “scruple” when they are unable to subscribe to a specific point of the confession. Different denominations handle scruples differently and that is certainly theirs to do. That topic is beyond the interest and scope of this article.

Over the past few years, I have noticed that an increasing number of ministers are willing to adopt Old Testament readings that come not from the inspired Hebrew text, but from ancient translations of it. This seems contrary to a prima facie reading our confession:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them [Westminster Confession of Faith, I.8].

This doctrinal formulation is firmly rooted in actual history. Many doctrines were being debated at the time of the Reformation, and the opposing parties both made direct appeals unto scripture, but that only led to a deeper point of debate: Which edition of scripture? The Roman Catholic Church argued for the superiority of its Latin translation and the Reformed insisted that only the Hebrew and Greek texts were authentical.

The word “authentical” essentially means “an accurate reproduction of the original” and the Reformed believed they possessed this in the faithful copies of scripture because of God’s special care and providence. The originally inspired scriptures had been, as the confession says, “kept pure in all ages.”

The Roman Catholic Church disagreed, claiming that the Hebrew and Greek had been corrupted and needed to be corrected by the Latin Vulgate. It still holds the Vulgate as its “official” translation, even though other versions, made from the Hebrew and Greek, have more recently been approved for private use and study. There is even an edition of the English Standard Version that has been granted the Imprimatur by a member of the Pope’s advisory team, the Council of Cardinals.

It is good to see Roman Catholics reading Bibles translated from the Hebrew and Greek—rather than from the Latin—but that also brings us back to the “new exception” that I expect to hear voiced in upcoming meetings of presbytery.

Modern Bible versions are no longer being translated only from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is plainly admitted, for example, in the preface to the ESV:

Read More