The Authority of the Septuagint during the Reformation

In the sixteenth century, the Bible was at the heart of the debate between the Protestant Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church.¹Much of this brief article is from Levi Berntson, “A Reformation-Historical Approach” in The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Perspectives, eds. Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2025). For larger discussion and references, see this chapter. The Reformers argued for sola Scriptura—that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority for faith and practice, while Rome contended that Scripture required external authentication from the Roman Church.

The issue was fundamental and affected other debated matters like purgatory and the place of Mary. What the Reformers quickly realized was that defining exactly what they meant by “Scripture” was not always an easy task. This was not only due to controversy with Rome about which books were canonical, but also because Christians were becoming increasingly aware that biblical manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments were not identical in every detail. Not only this, but the Reformers were very knowledgeable of various ancient translations of Scripture, especially the Septuagint—a general term they used to refer to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Various opinions

The Reformers understood that the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint was no easy issue, and much of their working paradigm is more assumed than explicitly stated. Still, the key Reformers of the sixteenth century were aware of the issue particularly as they encountered specific problems in biblical texts. What is noteworthy is that the Reformers did not always maintain the same position. With respect to the “Septuagint” (Septuaginta) or the “Greek Version” (Versio Graeca), most Reformers viewed it as inferior to the Hebrew text, while others were willing to prefer its reading to the Hebrew text in certain cases.

Related

• 
  Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from iStock
  The Most Important Bible Translation You’ve Never Heard of

  Used by the Apostles and the early church, the Greek translations of the Old Testament may be the most important ever made.

  William A. Ross

Luther sets the tone

The Reformers generally regarded the Hebrew text of the Old Testament as the authoritative text over and above all the “versions” (ancient translations). Not only did Martin Luther (1483–1546) always base his own exegesis on the Hebrew consonantal text, but he was a staunch advocate of reading the Old Testament in its original language. For Luther, the Hebrew consonantal text enjoys highest authority, and so an interpreter may depart from a reading of the vowel points if necessary. But, with regard to the consonantal text, Luther states that there is no possibility that the Jews had corrupted all the Hebrew copies, and he even defends the Christian use of Jewish commentaries. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) agreed, with Vermigli repeatedly referring to the Hebrew text as the “Hebrew Truth,” and Bullinger stating that the Hebrew text is the “foundation of truth.”

Preservation and variants

The reason for this is that the Reformers believed in a general preservation of the Hebrew text throughout the ages by God, though they certainly acknowledged variants in the manuscripts. To defend the preservation of the Hebrew text, the Reformers would frequently point to what they viewed as errors and corruptions in the Septuagint. For example, Martin Bucer (1491–1551) argues that the preservation of the Hebrew text is far superior to the preservation of the Septuagint.

Vermigli also cautions against claiming that the differences between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint are due to intentional corruption of the Hebrew by the Jews. Instead, he maintains that the Hebrew text offers the most reliable account. Vermigli also notes that the Septuagint available in his own time is not exactly the same as the version used by the early church fathers.I It has undergone several alterations over time. Bullinger, on the other hand, emphasizes that divine providence preserved the Septuagint to meet the needs of God’s people during a period when knowledge of Hebrew had greatly diminished.

The case of Psalm 40:7

Accordingly, these Reformers used the Septuagint only as an interpreter the Hebrew text (not a corrector), especially in such places where the Septuagint appears to disagree with the Hebrew reading. For example, Luther is forced to wrestle with this issue in Hebrews 10:5, in which the author cites the Greek version of Psalm 40:7. The Hebrew Psalm reads, “two ears you have prepared for me,” whereas Luther’s Septuagint text reads, “A body you have prepared for me,” which matches the text in Hebrews. Luther, who will never grant that the Hebrew text is corrupt, argues that the “ears” of the Hebrew text emphasize the “external” sense of the hearing of the law (namely, the Messiah’s obedience) while the “body” of the Septuagint emphasizes the “mystical” sense of the body with which the Messiah executes his obedience.

For Luther, this is why the author of Hebrews follows the Septuagint reading: there is no error in the Hebrew text, but rather the Septuagint reading quoted by Hebrews is simply interpreting the Hebrew text. Similarly, Vermigli occasionally describes the Septuagint as “paraphrasing” the Hebrew text. One example is its rendering of “strong men” in Psalm 78:25 as “angels.” This interpretive approach of the Septuagint draws Vermigli’s interest, particularly when New Testament authors adopt its phrasing. However, Vermigli does not see these citations as elevating the Septuagint above the Hebrew text; instead, he believes the New Testament authors often validate the Septuagint’s interpretations. Bullinger’s engagement with the Septuagint reflects a comparable approach.

Even when it seems like more than “interpreting” is happening, Luther remains steadfast that the Hebrew text cannot be altered. In Acts 7:14, Stephen quotes Genesis 46:27 and tells his hearers that “seventy-five” people came to Egypt (the Septuagint reading), but the Hebrew text of Genesis 46:27 reads “seventy.” In answer to the quandary, Luther writes that the Septuagint must have erred in its translation of the number through ignorance, falsification, or copyist error, but he admits that he has no idea why Stephen has repeated the error in Acts 7. Here, Luther simply confesses that he does not have a solution to the problem at all.

Calvin entertains Hebrew corruptions

A different inclination is noticeable in John Calvin (1509–1564) and Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), both of whom go beyond the view of Luther and others to allow the Septuagint reading to stand against the Hebrew reading. Calvin himself does state that the Hebrew text is the authoritative text and explains that the Greek text was used by God when knowledge of Hebrew was dissipating during the time of Christ.

However, it is evident that by “authoritative” Calvin appears to mean something like “default,” since he is willing to allow the Septuagint to correct the Hebrew reading in certain difficult situations. When he turns to the same passage that challenged Luther above (Acts 7:14), Calvin explains that Luke may be repeating the Septuagint reading (even though the Hebrew reading is correct in truth) so that he would not offend his Greek-speaking readers who were used to the Septuagint.

But Calvin also suggests it is possible that the Hebrew text was corrupted at some point in its reading of “70” and that Luke and the Septuagint together preserve the true reading of “75.” Though Calvin does not take a hard position on the issue, it is significant that he is willing to suggest that the reading of the Hebrew text may be corrupt, and that the Septuagint actually preserves true reading over against the Hebrew.

Zwingli goes further

Zwingli’s stance surpasses Calvin’s in strength, for he was even more willing to grant authority to the Septuagint. His early education involved in-depth study of classical Greek literature and the Septuagint, making him far more acquainted with the Septuagint than most of his peers. After completing his education, Zwingli frequently utilized the Septuagint in his daily life, often working with it during Greek class translation exercises.

Due to his extensive engagement with the Septuagint, Zwingli remarks in a biblical commentary that there are “countless instances where the Septuagint reads and interprets differently and more accurately than the later interpretations of the Rabbis. Those who thoughtfully compare these interpretations with the Hebrew are aware of this.”

In essence, Zwingli held that the Septuagint often provides superior readings compared to the Hebrew texts passed down by the Rabbis. This conviction led Zwingli to show significant reluctance in challenging the interpretations of the Septuagint’s ancient translators.

Conclusion

Regardless of these differences between the Reformers, what they all understood was that their doctrine of sola Scriptura depended upon their ability to point to the biblical text as the final authority for faith and practice. The difficulty they encountered was that in certain situations, it is not clear if the original Old Testament text is always the extant Hebrew reading, or if it is sometimes necessary to have recourse to the ancient versions like the Septuagint to determine the original reading. This was an issue that the Reformers of the sixteenth century were not able to fully solve.

The situation is somewhat understandable given that textual criticism was only just beginning to develop at this time, and the Reformers had other theological fish to fry. But the problem certainly did not solve itself, and it carried over into the next century, thereby becoming a significant area of controversy between the Protestant and Roman Catholic scholastics—a subject addressed in our next article.

Notes

• 1
  Much of this brief article is from Levi Berntson, “A Reformation-Historical Approach” in The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Perspectives, eds. Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2025). For larger discussion and references, see this chapter.

Levi Berntson

Levi (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is associate professor of theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, FL. He is also a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is the translator and editor of The Fundamentals of Sacred Theology by Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722).