Jonathan Arnold Responds to Mark Ward’s Critique

of his Paper Presented to the Reformation Bible Society

The Criticism

Advance to the 54.15 timestamp

The Paper

Advance to the 18.15 timestamp

I have to say the quotation and examination of what I said in my twenty-two-minute paper is rather disingenuous. Firstly, the person who posted this video has my contact details and I have reviewed articles for him before where he has been criticising matters. It would be at least courteous to ask me for clarification first. He is connected to me on Facebook and can message me any time. Likewise, the critique could have been held till the papers were published. I would suggest this approach is why CB advocates don’t have the desire to interact on these points.

Further, the few seconds of my paper extracted out of context is the immediate problem. I am speaking about textual and translational influences of the Septuagint on the text of the English Bible translation (in this case the NKJV) which is clear from the wider context of the paper (video above). You have cut the audio in such a way that it is misleading. What is said makes me think not everyone on the panel had actually listened to my paper, maybe only the clip to deliver technical analysis (given the mystified reviewers). At the point extracted I am speaking about the impact the different editions of the Septuagint have had on translations in English and where these are incorporated either into the margin or in the actual text of the English translation. This could include textual, but I am referring here to translational aspects too, in terms of how a Greek word that is used in the Septuagint has influenced the translation of a Hebrew word. You will note the word “influenced” is used.

On that basis Meade’s points on just textual matters are on the basis of a misunderstanding of what is being said. He also references the ESV when I am looking at the NKJV here. And his arguments make my point for me in the case of Psalm 4 and 1 Chronicles 6.28 (and bear in mind I am not making any statement whether these are for better or worse at this point in the paper merely establishing the Septuagint does have an impact on OT Bible translations):

– On Psalm 4.4 he is absolutely correct and reinforces the point I am making. That the Septuagint Greek translation has in my view influenced the translation of the wording in this Psalm to “be angry” in many English translations. Both in Ephesians and in subsequent translations of Psalm 4.4. The Hebrew word does have other nuances of meaning that commentators have discussed historically, the difference in the English translations is not a simple update (the KJV states “stand in awe”). As I reason “probably the influence of the Septuagint”. Paul does quote it in Ephesians 4.26, but there are occasions where the OT quote is amended in the NT (both agreeing with the Septuagint and not) where we trust the Lord is revealing more meaning or greater emphasis on a particular word. It doesn’t follow we need to amend the Hebrew (I am sure that view has, will and can be critiqued).

– 1 Chronicles 6:28, same point. It is not beyond the realms to argue that the Septuagint has influenced translators subsequently to use the term Joel rather than Vashni. As you observe Joel is not in the text (Masoretic). Many would say this is an error and scribal mistake; I would say it is a big error given the diligent scribal approach for them not to notice. They would have been capable of drawing the same point that Joel is used elsewhere in the chapter. So my argument is that the Septuagint’s use of Joel has probably influenced the broader approach to this text as a reasonable one. Given some (probably those in this video) will look to it as evidence there was a different reading.

– On Obadiah 12, this is drawn from a similar point just on translations in general. I clarify at the end noting the error from my notes that this probably is the influence of the Vulgate. In the paper to come you will see I am referring to the Nova Vulgata. It is not strictly relevant to the topic or a strong point. Mea culpa. It will probably be just a footnote in the published paper.

 I would emphasise again that in the audio I am actually speaking about the NKJV at this point, and I quote from the NKJV. Highlighting the influence of the Septuagint on the translation of words as well as the textual basis.

Lastly, it is regrettable you do not address the whole premise of my paper that the Septuagint is useful and the KJV translators use it and others in assisting translation and discerning meaning of words translated. But a number of the Reformers (the relevant topic, as we are the Reformation Bible Society) were not making corrections to the textual basis of the OT using the Septuagint, illustrated by the Helvetic Consensus. I also proposed that the confessions indicate the Bible being both inspired and preserved in Hebrew (for OT) and in Greek (for NT). The conclusion being that they did not see inspired Scripture being preserved in a translation (which I trust you would agree given your position on the KJV). This point is debated, but I found Richard Muller’s assessment persuasive where he states: “The Helvetic Consensus stands firmly within the Reformed tradition’s commitment to the original texts of Scripture as the ultimate authority. While it does not explicitly address the Septuagint, its insistence on the primacy of the Hebrew and Greek texts implicitly critiques any translation, including the LXX, that might be used to challenge or override the original languages.” (Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725*. Baker Academic, 2003).

 I hope this explains what I was trying to say and deals with any confusion.