A New Exception

By Christian M. McShaffrey

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 of 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:

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text [emphasis mine, Preface, ESV].

Another new version, the Legacy Standard Bible, is even more vague in its admission. It speaks of “incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources” and “the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls” [Foreword, LSB].

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. In fact, I am not sure it can be reconciled with the confession’s assertion that it is the Old Testament in Hebrew which remains authentical. We need to find a solution.

Some might suggest that we simply trust candidates to declare an exception if they disagree with the confession, but there are at least two problems with that proposed solution. First, many seminary students are not taught the difference between 17th century and 20th century models of textual criticism. The other problem is that the last thing a candidate wants to do is state a potential scruple and then sit before the candidates and credentials committee to explain it. I did that, by the way, but I am not confident that all men are as scrupulous.

Another suggested solution might be to amend the confession to include non-Hebrew sources as inspired and authentical. An amendment of such consequence, however, is extremely unlikely to be adopted. My denomination, for example, has been working on simple morphological updates for years now and has yet to reach a consensus.

Setting those options aside, it would seem that the best present solution might be for presbyters to askcandidates about this new view of the OT text during examination. In order to assist such discovery, here are some sample questions with readings from the Hebrew Masoretic text marked as MT and non-Hebrew readings marked as NH:

Genesis 4:8 ­– Before Abel’s murder, did Cain simply talk with him [MT] or did he specifically invite him to go out to the field [NH]?

Exodus 14:25 – During the Red Sea crossing, did the Egyptians’ chariot wheels fall off [MT] or just get clogged [NH]?

Deuteronomy 32:8 – In the Song of Moses, did God set bounds according to the number of the children of Israel [MT] or the sons of God [NH]?

Deuteronomy 32:43 – Does the Song of Moses end with an appeal to the nations [MT] or to the gods [NH]?

Judges 16:13 – Did Delilah simply weave the seven locks of Samson [MT] or did she also fasten them with a pin [NH]?

1 Samuel 13:5 – Did the Philistines go up to battle against Israel with thirty thousand chariots [MT] or with three thousand [NH]?

Psalm 145 – Is this Psalm a broken acrostic with 21 verses [MT], or should a half verse be added to verse 13 to repair it [NH]?

These are just a few examples of modern translators engaging in textual criticism and deciding to depart from the Hebrew Masoretic text, based on the readings found in ancient versions. Their rationale is sometimes stated in a footnote, but not always.

Neither the NIV nor ESV, for example, acknowledge the addition of Delilah’s pin. I discovered it in Dan Wallace’s online NET version. This, by the way, is an invaluable resource when it comes to discovering the non-Hebrew readings that are now appearing in the new versions.

A radical shift is presently underway when it comes to identifying the inspired, and therefore authentical, text of the Old Testament. For nearly four centuries, Reformed and Presbyterian ministers have upheld the authority of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but now, some are abandoning it as the standard.

It is not clear whether the modern versions are the cause or the effect of this abandonment, but that does not ultimately matter. This new conversation – and perhaps new exception – is coming soon to a presbytery near you and I hope this essay has better prepared you to debate it.